Democracy via lottery

SLUSK

The normal election process can be rigged and will favor old money and power, a truly democratic system would give us a real government of the people. This can be achieved through lottery. Given that the ruling assembly is large enough the representatives will be very representative of the normal population. I find this process more democratic than actual elections.

Ostrom

SLUSK wrote: »

The normal election process can be rigged and will favor old money and power, a truly democratic system would give us a real government of the people. This can be achieved through lottery. Given that the ruling assembly is large enough the representatives will be very representative of the normal population. I find this process more democratic than actual elections.

.....what?

Biggins

efla wrote: »

.....what?

You took the words right out of my mouth! LOL

"Say what!" OP?

SLUSK

The process of lottery is used to appoint jurors in Anglo Saxon-based judicial systems as far as I know, at least in USA. This way you supposedly get a jury of your peers. Lottery as a method of appointing officials has been used in ancient Greece and this should ensure that you get a "government of the people".

Biggins

Aaa ok!

ninty9er

The problem with lottery is that only those interested will buy a ticket, leaving things relatively unchanged.

SLUSK

Every adult will partake in this lottery, it has no entry fee and if you get picked you will have to lead, just like people have to do jury duty.

democrates

By definition, democracy involves an electorate voting for candidates in elections, whereas selecting the legislature via lottery is not democracy. Ideally democracy leads to government of the people, by the people, and for the people, which I would call 'just government', so justice is the end, democracy one element of the means.

I agree that selection by lottery stands a good chance of delivering just government whereas corrupt democracy does not. That said, there is still the option of repairing democracy, but if the electorate are to make wise informed choices, transparency is crucial.

Furthermore, we need to evolve beyond representative democracy to a situation where the public can petition for a referendum on issues of sufficient import (so for example 100,000 signatures could trigger a referendum on nama), ensuring that if circumstances change following a general election, a democratic mandate is still possible. As it is, sitting governments claim to have a universal mandate when in fact their actions in unforeseen circumstances can lack democratic legitimacy.

Kudos incidentally, for daring to think about something fundamental from first principles rather than sheepishly accepting the received wisdom. Just beware of it distracting so much that you sacrifice your own life plan.

SLUSK

Does one less election every four years make this society less democratic? No since you in theory get a perfect representation of the people this form of government is more democratic. I did not come up with this idea of appointing government officials through lottery. That was thought of long ago in ancient Greece. I personally am very opposed to democracy(which by the way does not mean I favor some sort of dictatorship).

Ostrom

How would candidates be selected?

SLUSK

The "candidates" which would be all adults would be selected through lottery. This should give us better people in office than the sociopaths people insist on voting for. There would no longer be any election campaigns where special interest groups could bribe their candidates to do their bidding. Modern democracy is disgusting, it has degenerated into some sort of reality show mixed with WWF/WCW.

democrates

I can appreciate your frustration with representative democracy, if you have a look at the Swiss system of direct democracy it becomes pretty clear that there are better ways to achieve justice in government. I'm not a fan of rule by a tiny elite, even if the faces change every few years.

Whiskey Jack

efla wrote: »

.....what?

The system is called Demarchy, I have been a proponent of this system of government for quite some time. There is the same, obvious comments from people when it is put to them, but the fact is that representative democracy is an utter joke - a small cabal of people can put talentless bufoons into government, not based on actual ability in running a sovereign state but based on their ability to divert public funds, quangos and such things as FAS schemes into certain areas - a prime example would be John O'Donoghues tenure as minister for Arts & Culture - I invite you to look up the spending figures in his constituency as compared to other parts of the country, makes for some pretty interesting reading indeed.

Whilst there are several different interpretations of how to successfully implement Demarchism, one things is certain, it needs people to stop being so stupid and lazy and to get involved with the running of their lives - having a whingefest now and again and going on pointless marches against such things as health issues, cuts and NAMA reveals a level of idiocy in this country that has been manipulated to allow the same visionless people to do a merry-go-round of plum positions.

Demarchism would ultimately be less expensive, more accountable and less prone to the systemic culture of apathy, self servience or corruption that constituents a large majority of our elected 'representatives'.

Basically, what we have at present, is a system whereby we are given a small pool of generally unsuitable people to choose from every 5 years and if you are able to spend sufficiently more than your opponent then you have a better chance of getting your message across to the electorate.

It doesnt matter what you message is, like unmined diamonds, until it is in the hands of your potential customer of voter, its worthless. Many able, intelligent and capable people have been been denied the chance to serve their fellows because someone who had more posters pipped them.

Following on from this is the lack of responsibility or ethics - we have a Ceann Comhairle who has displayed Marie Antoinette levels of disconnect with the ordinary people, a man who now show 'regret' for the situation he is in - make no mistake, any regret or distress displayed is purely down to him being caught out, their is absolutely no question that he is in any way embarrased by his excesses and I note he certainly has no intention of paying back a single cent. Make note of his excesses, these expenses coudl pay for such operations as heart and lung transplants, they could go towards paying for special classes for children with Autism, they could be used to check school buses to avoid tragedies, yet they went on top hats, limos and tipping porters for hotel rooms literally fit for Kings.

But what do we then get? An absolute joke of a statement from Enda Kenny saying that he is 'satisfied' with the statement?

Satisfied - that is why, even with FF on the ropes, Enda Kenny will most probably never take the Taoiseachs offices, he is as negative and talentless as Cowen.

Returning to the original in relation to what I wrote above, we need a system that can replace people in position quickly, when a ship is run aground, you sack the skipper and you arange for someone else to conduct the salvage, yet we have the skipper who blindly dashed us on the rock trying to take credit for the 'hard decisions' that have to made as a result of his incompetance. In a demarchistic regime, he would be fired, pensionless, immediately.

As for the make believe Prince, Bertie Ahern, in a demarchistic regime, he would have been jailed long ago, not least for his non tax compliance, but I will hold off on making any more comment on his until such time as the tribunal makes its findings public.

We desperately need to reevaluate our sense of value in the world and how we live our lives. Making a decision to grant a very desirable job to people who are in general not suitable for the job, with no way to sack them for 5 years is not working. Simple as that.



Links:

http://libilip.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92kio/index.html

http://www.forumjar.com/forums/Demarchy

http://www.indopedia.org/Demarchy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy

http://en.allexperts.com/e/d/de/demarchy.htm

http://www.citizensparliament.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=119:demarchy-governance-by-lot&catid=56:topic-sheets&Itemid=98

prinz

Ah of course, because electing some drug addled petty criminal who has no decent education Taoiseach by lottery would be so much better.

Sesshoumaru

prinz wrote: »

Ah of course, because electing some drug addled petty criminal who has no decent education Taoiseach by lottery would be so much better.

I think the basic idea was you don't give power to those that want it. Better to find some poor chump via lottery and just let him or her lead within a basic framework of laws and rules etc.

I'd be willing to give this a shot! I'm sure you could build in some basic safeguards e.g. excluding people with criminal records from the lottery.

Whiskey Jack

prinz wrote: »

Ah of course, because electing some drug addled petty criminal who has no decent education Taoiseach by lottery would be so much better.

And why do you suppose someone with a drug problem and criminal record would be eligable? Under the current system of representative democracy, we have no problem allowing people with emotional, mental or substance abuse issues holding office, nor is criminality a bar to serving. In a demarchistic system, the highest standards would have to be met, standards that a large proportion of our sitting TDs would probably fail, including alcohol and drug testing and the abolition of a subsidised bar for people who are meant to be running the nation.

Do me a favour, if you have an intelligent comment to make, please make it, I am not on these boards to educate debate with one line post sock puppets.

prinz

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

And why do you suppose someone with a drug problem and criminal record would be eligable?

So who decides on the rules for eligibility?

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

Under the current system of representative democracy, we have no problem allowing people with emotional, mental or substance abuse issues holding office, nor is criminality a bar to serving.

Yes, we elect them however. We reap what we sow. It's a bit different to election by lottery where we have no choice in the matter.

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

In a demarchistic system, the highest standards would have to be met...

So it wouldn't be a random lottery of the electorate. It would be a predetermined section of society which means certain criteria, which will be laid down by who?

Oh and post reported.

Whiskey Jack

prinz wrote: »

So who decides on the rules for eligibility?

Who decides? No one 'decides' - if you are dependent on drugs or have a criminal record then its an automatic out - pretty much like driving.

prinz wrote: »

Yes, we elect them however. We reap what we sow. It's a bit different to election by lottery where we have no choice in the matter.

You willfully misunderstand the concept of demarchism. I have posted links to explain how it works. Either read them or dont. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

prinz wrote: »

So it wouldn't be a random lottery of the electorate. It would be a predetermined section of society which means certain criteria, which will be laid down by who?

Holding to high standards does not mean a predeterminded section of society - it means precluding those who are unsuitable for positions of responsibility. Again, its like driving. We do not allow those who are dangerous drivers and have a conviction for it to hold a licence, we do not allow people on drink or drugs to drive a vehicle. These are not hard standards to adhere to.

prinz wrote: »

Oh and post reported.

And why would you report my post? Because you dont like what I say? Perhaps you shouldnt engage in debate if its upsetting to you as it obviously is.

nesf

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

Do me a favour, if you have an intelligent comment to make, please make it, I am not on these boards to educate debate with one line post sock puppets.

Calling other people trolls or sock puppets will get you banned. Please refrain from doing so.

prinz

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

Who decides? No one 'decides' - if you are dependent on drugs or have a criminal record then its an automatic out - pretty much like driving..

How do you define dependancy? Particularly when it comes to say alcohol for example. Seems arbitrary to me.

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

You willfully misunderstand the concept of demarchism. I have posted links to explain how it works. Either read them or dont. Your opinion is irrelevant to me...

I did read some of them. Seems to work, if by work you mean in the fictional lands of sci-fi writers.

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

Holding to high standards does not mean a predeterminded section of society - it means precluding those who are unsuitable for positions of responsibility....

You are still avoiding the issue of who/how the terms of suitability are determined. Perhaps people shown to be adulterous should be excluded? Perhaps people who haven't had third level education should be excluded? Where do these highly held standards come from?

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

And why would you report my post? Because you dont like what I say? Perhaps you shouldnt engage in debate if its upsetting to you as it obviously is.

See above.

Whiskey Jack

nesf wrote: »

Calling other people trolls or sock puppets will get you banned. Please refrain from doing so.

Dont worry about the banning, I'll be taking myself off these boards immediately, way to go to make a new poster feel welcome.

No where did I notice usage of the term 'sock puppet' as being considered insulting, as this is entirely an opinion based ruling and it took an administrator AND a moderator to hammer home the point, I'll go elsewhere for open debate, seeing as its not to found on this site.

prinz wrote: »

How do you define dependancy? Particularly when it comes to say alcohol for example. Seems arbitrary to me.

I did read some of them. Seems to work, if by work you mean in the fictional lands of sci-fi writers.

You are still avoiding the issue of who/how the terms of suitability are determined. Perhaps people shown to be adulterous should be excluded? Perhaps people who haven't had third level education should be excluded? Where do these highly held standards come from?

See above.

I wont bother arguing with a moderators friend - enjoy your homogenous love in - seems alternating points of view are not encouraged. It hasnt been interesting debating with you prinz seeing as you have gotten your friends to make sure I dont upset their special posters.

nesf

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

Dont worry about the banning, I'll be taking myself off these boards immediately, way to go to make a new poster feel welcome.

No where did I notice usage of the term 'sock puppet' as being considered insulting, as this is entirely an opinion based ruling and it took an administrator AND a moderator to hammer home the point, I'll go elsewhere for open debate, seeing as its not to found on this site.




I wont bother arguing with a moderators friend - enjoy your homogenous love in - seems alternating points of view are not encouraged. It hasnt been interesting debating with you prinz seeing as you have gotten your friends to make sure I dont upset their special posters.

Eh, so you break a rule, call someone a sock puppet, get a warning for it and suddenly it's a conspiracy to block open debate?

Whiskey Jack

nesf wrote: »

Eh, so you break a rule, call someone a sock puppet, get a warning for it and suddenly it's a conspiracy to block open debate?

Dont know why I am bothering to continue, I have also signed up to politics.ie and indymedia.ie and they are both looking more appealing after this debacle, but I will say this - there is no conspiracy, there is simply the fact that you and your colleague both felt the need to punish me for the same issue, 2 infractions for the same post? How many other mods are waiting to give it an infraction? Will I get one for each shift, will whoever takes over from you also give me one?

No, this isnt debate or free speech, its looking like making sure people with opinions you disagree with are held to a tighter standard than those you agree with.

Nevertheless, I was hoping to make a contribution, but it seems I have wandered into a den of mediocrity and mundanity. Oh well.

Biggins

:eek:

nesf

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

Dont know why I am bothering to continue, I have also signed up to politics.ie and indymedia.ie and they are both looking more appealing after this debacle, but I will say this - there is no conspiracy, there is simply the fact that you and your colleague both felt the need to punish me for the same issue, 2 infractions for the same post? How many other mods are waiting to give it an infraction? Will I get one for each shift, will whoever takes over from you also give me one?

No, this isnt debate or free speech, its looking like making sure people with opinions you disagree with are held to a tighter standard than those you agree with.

Nevertheless, I was hoping to make a contribution, but it seems I have wandered into a den of mediocrity and mundanity. Oh well.

You shouldn't have received two infractions. This was a mistake. I'll have one of those infractions reversed within an hour or so.

democrates

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

No, this isnt debate or free speech, its looking like making sure people with opinions you disagree with are held to a tighter standard than those you agree with.

Nevertheless, I was hoping to make a contribution, but it seems I have wandered into a den of mediocrity and mundanity. Oh well.

There is sufficient free speech here, ad hominem slurs are discouraged since they can derail a discussion and upset people. Life's too short for that lark, in any setting.

Threads get far more views than posts, so more people are taking in your ideas than the number who directly engage. Why not stick with it, so long as you play the ball and not the man you'll find it a very useful resource. I for one have found your substantive input interesting, it would be a pity if you quit over a mere warning that just spells out the rules of the road here.