The Future of Politics

[TevashSzat]

Well, all of the recent debates and media coverage over here in the US regarding the general election has gotten me thinking: Who in the world is really satisfied in any form with the current state of politics?

I am personally a Democrat and heavily disagree with many Republican thoughts, but there are so many Democrats that I would love to choke that in my view, it is more of a lesser of two evil choice for me. This would be too idealistic, but I would truly love a 3rd party candidate who wasn't afraid to speak the full truth and not try to put a spin on everything just for the poll numbers.

I suppose this brings up probably the point of the thread. I have several questions that I would love to hear the thoughts of others on:

1) What would be your ideal state of politics? I'm not talking about what ideology you would want to be dominant, but simply in what form your "perfect" politics would be

2) Why do you think that people have not tried to change the current system? Why do you think such attempts have failed?

3) How many people think that if repeated lying was grounds for the death penalty, politicians would be the first to be executed?

I'll elaborate on my views sometime else since its a bit late right now and I'm bound to make some huge logical error and start rambling on if I starting writing about it now

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1) What would be your ideal state of politics? I'm not talking about what ideology you would want to be dominant, but simply in what form your "perfect" politics would be

Define. Perfect form of government? Perfect civil service?

2) Why do you think that people have not tried to change the current system? Why do you think such attempts have failed?

The current system is relatively new, if by the current system you mean modern democracy. Otherwise, tradition holds. Systems evolve or come around through bloodshed. It's difficult to rapidly change a system, and, of course, there is always resistance by those who think the old system is better.

3) How many people think that if repeated lying was grounds for the death penalty, politicians would be the first to be executed?

Nope. I've been through this before. The vast majority of us lie, a lot of us do it a lot, and many of those do it without even noticing it. Politicians are no better than us, but it is arrogant of us to say that they are much worse. If repeated lying was grounds for the death penalty, we'd all be six feet deep right now.

In addition, people are not always aware of the factual basis what they are saying. They may be saying what they think is the truth, only to have it disproven later - it happens. To everyone. Often.

[Strike For The South]

Power is to much of an aphrodisiac. Your best bet is to screw politics and just make your paper

[CountArach]

First off you have to realise that America isn't really a Democracy, it is a Republic that puts more power in the hands of fewer lawmakers than many western societies, so I don't believe it is the best exampel of a functioning Western Democracy.

1) What would be your ideal state of politics?

While entirely realising the limitations of it - Direct Democracy would be the greatest form, however as Rousseau says (I have been quoting him far too much lately...):

Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.

2) Why do you think that people have not tried to change the current system? Why do you think such attempts have failed?

Because change is still possible from within the system and as such as long as people believe they have a chance to change the rulers and decision makers, they are not going to be willin to revolt - because afterall, what would replace it?

[Louis VI the Fat]

1) What would be your ideal state of politics?

When two conditions are met: 1) A brutal dictatorship. 2) With me at the helm.
Failing the first, then never mind the second. Failing the second, I prefer a democracy.

2) Why do you think that people have not tried to change the current system? Why do you think such attempts have failed?

It has been tried. It failed when during a coup atempt I attacked a police baton with my forehead and the former proved the sturdier.

3) How many people think that if repeated lying was grounds for the death penalty, politicians would be the first to be executed?

Politicians would come second. Right after the electorates. Politicians don't lie that much. Don't need to. A clever politician is too aware that people only hear what they want to hear.

[Sarmatian]

When two conditions are met: 1) A brutal dictatorship. 2) With me at the helm.
Failing the first, then never mind the second. Failing the second, I prefer a democracy.

Why brutal? Benevolent dictatorships are so much better.

So I'd go with benevolent dictatorship, with me at the helm. Very simple constitution:
Rule number 1: Sarmatian is always right
Rule number 2: If Sarmatian is somehow wrong, rule number one is applied...

[Ironside]

Why brutal? Benevolent dictatorships are so much better.

So I'd go with benevolent dictatorship, with me at the helm. Very simple constitution:
Rule number 1: Sarmatian is always right
Rule number 2: If Sarmatian is somehow wrong, rule number one is applied...

You are aware that those rules are the primary rules for what ends up as really, really brutal dictorships?

Because if your always right and something goes wrong then it's traitors in our midst who did it...

[Sarmatian]

You are aware that those rules are the primary rules for what ends up as really, really brutal dictorships?

Because if your always right and something goes wrong then it's traitors in our midst who did it...

You are aware that it was joke?

[Kralizec]

I'll try to give a real answer...lol.

1) What would be your ideal state of politics? I'm not talking about what ideology you would want to be dominant, but simply in what form your "perfect" politics would be

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean presidential vs parliamentary systems? Consensus-orientated or polarised?

I prefer a tangible system of checks and ballances, meaning that if it's a parliamentary system there should be a clear distinction between the assembly and the government. The "government parties" in the assembly would support the administraton, of course, but they should be able to act independently from the ministers. Meaning, at the very least, that being a minister rules out membership of parliament.

I also prefer a great variety of parliament. With many small parties that are often opposed to eachother, it can at times be difficult to form an effective government. However if there are only a few big ones there's going to be strife just the same, but it will be within the parties itself and that can hardly be considered "healthy".

2) Why do you think that people have not tried to change the current system? Why do you think such attempts have failed?

Assuming that you're referring to the US' system, it has never been in the interest of either party to significantly change the way congressmen or presidents are elected. I think that if the founding fathers had foreseen how dominant and encompassing institutional parties would become, at least some of them would have paused to reconsider what they were doing.

3) How many people think that if repeated lying was grounds for the death penalty, politicians would be the first to be executed?

I think that in the case of politicians, the condition is usually pathological and that they'd be released after pleading insanity

[Viking]

Well, all of the recent debates and media coverage over here in the US regarding the general election has gotten me thinking: Who in the world is really satisfied in any form with the current state of politics?

Will anyone ever?

[CountArach]

Will anyone ever?

I imagine Dictators aren't too unhappy

[Viking]

I imagine Dictators aren't too unhappy

Well, if Team America: World Police is a credible source...

In all seriousness though, it could be interesting to have dictators fill out the a "how happy are you with your life; do you feel that you are able to reach all the goals that you set etc etc" form.

[JR-]

speaking for britain, i would like to see:
1. devolution of power from central state control
2. devolved power instituted in elected people; sussex sheriff, hatfield health tsar etc
3. removal of quangoes from the levers of power

[macsen rufus]

Good question, and not one that a single post can answer (except maybe the post of world dictator ), but the general principles that I find most essential:

1) subsidiarity - decisions should be taken as close to their locality as possible, and at the lowest (ie most decentralised) branch of government
2) separation of powers - power should be rooted in institutions bound by law and checked by other institutions
3) term limits - no "politicians for life"

The biggest threat I see to the integrity of Western democracies is a creeping plutocracy* - most evident in the USA but certainly on the rise in Europe too. Money speaks louder than the ballot box, and there is far too much movement through the "revolving doors" between corporate, political and regulatory governance.


* government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich

In those days people took their politics seriously. They started saving up rotten tomatoes weeks before the election."

[yesdachi]

1) The perfect gov for me is one that would be very minimal. When they say “if we don’t get a resolution for x soon we will be forced to shut down all non-essential government functions” I say, if they are not essential, what do we have them for in the first place. Apply a flat tax, let me handle my own retirement, let me give charity to who I decide, protect me, supply me with the basics I need to function and then stay out of my business and stop trying to decide things for me. Of course it won’t happen because people like to meddle and if you are successful they want to take from you.

2) The current 2 party system is tough to break because it has deep roots and lots of money fueling it.