Forms of Government

[Kylonicus]

Howdy, this is the thread where you post the type of government system you'd like to create, if you could.

 

This is purely for amusement and intellectual stimulation.

 

You can include Utopias, dystopias, new political systems, a tweaked political system, ect...

 

 

 

I hope that this will bring some enjoyment to you all.

[J'Dona]

Cool thread idea, I like designing governments in my spare time. Even if they are mostly unworkable and flawed ...

 

How about a direct democracy? Now that they have decent communication (the internet), millions of people could vote on issues and action could be taken based upon them in an almost practical manner. You'd still need a government administration and all, and intelligence/military branches that would operate without public control, but overall it would provide a set of policies far more representative of the populace than representative democracy could ever produce. Since people wouldn't be voting on parties and the powers of individual persons in the government would be greatly reduced, it would also cut out political campaigning and make the government less prone to corruption.

 

Of course, not every issue that the majority supports is actually the best choice. Since major decisions would now be made by the public rather than politicians, there would need to be some measures to ensure that only those votes which are informed are counted (maybe political aptitude tests or something), otherwise the whole process is susceptible to propaganda from interested third parties. A man who votes for conservative policies because his father did shouldn't be allowed to vote on them if he doesn't have any real understanding of them, since such a vote isn't informed and not truly representative.

 

These are just loose ideas. I don't know if they're meant for discussion in this thread, Kylonicus, or if everyone is just stating their own dream government, but I can expand on some points if you'd like.

[Sayonara]

Isn't this basically the same as one of the questions asked in http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10968

 

?

[J'Dona]

Some of the same points are covered in there I think, but I'm assuming that this thread is more for creating new or hybrid forms of government from scratch, rather than describing yourself and what you would do if elected into an existing representative democracy.

[Savier]

Fascism.

[-Demosthenes-]

...How about a direct democracy?...

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7601&highlight=majority

[Dak]

ok, heres an argument against a direct democracy:

 

vote: should taxes go up, stay the same, or go down?

 

im pretty sure that the majority would vote for taxes to be lowered.

 

vote: should roads be maintained/should we enploy more policemen/should we adequately finance schools/etc?

 

im pretty sure that the answres to these votes would be yes.

 

effecting the wishes of the majority with reguards to both the first vote and the second votes would be possible how?

[J'Dona]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7601&highlight=majority

Yes, I've seen that thread. Majocracy is different from direct democracy in the sense that it seems to have a government administration and set of parties which are essentially the same as the sorts currently used in representative democracies. It could lead to radical reforms at the drop of a hat in the event that the populace loses some trust in the government due to some scandal, which is impractical. However, that thread does bring up other arguments that do apply very well against direct democracy, like this quote here:

Homosexuals. Abortion. Islam. Evolutionary Theory. Nuclear Power. Freedom of Speach.

 

I have seen properly conducted polls that' date=' in the US, belief or support of these things is a minority view.

 

Your 'society' is designed around eradicating minority views and keeping the status quo.[/quote']This brings me on to a reply to Dak's points.

ok' date=' heres an argument against a direct democracy:

 

vote: should taxes go up, stay the same, or go down?

 

im pretty sure that the majority would vote for taxes to be lowered.[/quote']I actually had my original post using the exact same issue here as an example of where it failed and hence where voting restrictions were required, but then I removed it. Where it said

 

"A man who votes for conservative policies because his father did shouldn't be allowed to vote on them if he doesn't have any real understanding of them, since such a vote isn't informed and not truly representative,"

 

I originally had something along the lines of

 

"A man who votes for a tax cut for personal reasons shouldn't be allowed to vote on it if he lacks the knowledge of economics to predict any possible repurcussions of it."

 

This is, however, somewhat ambiguous and specialised. I hope you didn't think that I was suggesting that the populace would micromanage the government down to every detail of the budget; clearly only an economist could make the best decision on a tax cut as above. What I was thinking of was a form of government with no party of affiliation, whose major social policies and values would be modelled off of the populace rather than some particular ideals (like republicans, democrats, labour, conservative, etc.), and which was built for regular referendums to determine the outcome of certain major issues, like, for example, the EU Constitution.

 

But as the examples in the quote of JaKiri's would seem to indicate, changing policies based on raw popular opinion could have disastrous results. I think it is dangerous that anyone can vote when the vast majority of people are wholly influenced by political camgaigning, family history, or selfish reasons rather than any rational consideration of issues. Removing parties and head politicians goes a long way to solving these; removing uninformed votes like in the tax cut example above through some sort of political aptitude test would go further, which is why I think it might be necessary so that a minimum standard is net amongst voters, and they can base their decisions off of their own beliefs and their take on the words of professionals in the media (and give registered voters a tax cut and make voting compulsory, just to keep the ball rolling).

 

Of course, as atinymonkey said in the first reply to the majocracy thread, this government would hand all power to the media, and this is another problem that would need to be resolved.

[Dak]

i agree that with current communications technologies people could have their say more oftern and vote on more issues, but their votes needent be the only factor in the desision. they could be taken into consideration alongside other factors, maybe overruling reasons to accept polocy x if the vast majority were in favour of polocy y, unless the reasons to accept polocy x were great enough to justify ignorring public oppinion etc. is that what your saying(im having a strange moment and cant quite understand your reply -- my bad, not yours)?

 

on a completely different approach from direct democracy: i think that there should be a life-long ruler in charge of things like tax, and implimenting other unpopular desisions; without fear of not getting re-elected, he/she would have uninhibited ability to raise taxes if nessesary, thus avoiding all this poncing about privatising public serveses, introdusing stealth-taxes, cutting costs in spending etc.

[Dak]

removing uninformed votes like in the tax cut example above through some sort of political aptitude test would go further, which is why I think it might be necessary so that a minimum standard is net amongst voters

ahh, so less like a democracy and more like a council of wize-people. i like it. but i think it would be a tad difficult to impliment. apart from the question of how youd construct the aptitude test, it could introduse a kind of cast system feeling in the country, whereby some people have a say and others dont (unless, i suppose, you base it on carrers: a vote amongst people whos job involves money (accountants, economisists, buisnessmen etc) on the matter of tax would sound logical and probably not piss off those who couldnt vote, but then could you trust a group of people which contains many buisnessmen to give a fair, non-self-serving vote as to the tax rate?)

 

and they can base their decisions off of their own beliefs and their take on the words of professionals in the media (and give registered voters a tax cut and make voting compulsory, just to keep the ball rolling).

if alot of people are voting, the tax cut would be unfeasable; if not many people are voting, then it would raise complaints for being 'undemocratic'. and as for forsing people to vote, what would happen to those who refused to vote?

[ydoaPs]

i like my idea from the best system thread.

[-Demosthenes-]

on a completely different approach from direct democracy: i think that there should be a life-long ruler in charge of things like tax, and implimenting other unpopular desisions

Isn't the point that we want the government to do what the people want?

[Dak]

thats the point of democracy; however, i think that democracy has its flaws, the weekness of having to pander to public desire, rather than catering for public need, being one of them.

 

the non-elected leader would get around this flaw, and could work in conjunction with an elected ruler.

[-Demosthenes-]

How would we find someone who would actually work for the needs of the people? What would we do if he turned out to be corrupt?

 

This flaw of democracy is avoided with a constitution or equivalent, which protects minorities and rights for people even when it is unpopular. Don't make a fallible man the leader, make an infallible document the supreme law.

[Dak]

HA! like in america you mean, where a document which originally ensured that civillians would have access to weapons to defend themselves in the event of a bandit attack (coincidentally, many settlements had a central arms depo where the firearms were kept, and the civillians were only given them in the event of an actuall bandit attack) nowadays insures the legal right of criminals to own and carry handguns, which are a lot smaller and concealabe than the firearms which existed when the constetution was written?

 

ideas can be changed to adapt to the changeing situation. bits of paper cannot, or at least cannot be changed as easaly.

[-Demosthenes-]

Oh HA! Maybe we could study a little bit of Constitution history! There are Amendments! Congress or a convention can pass an amendment, and after it is ratified by the 3/4 of the states or a a convention elected by the states it is added to the constitution. This ensures it can change with the countries needs.

 

So I'm proposing that a constitution be in place to protect personal rights and minorities, with small changes made by large groups of elected represtitives, instead of one man in charge of everything that can do whatever he wants, with no protection for personal rights or minorities.

[Dak]

i was only sujjesting one person with absolute authority in a few limited areas, such as tax. and i still think the constitutions a bad idea.

 

take guns for example. im not saying that the populance should be allowed guns, or that the populance shouldnt be allowed guns. all im saying is that the populance should be allowed/disallowed guns based on what makes sence. NOT on the fact that a pice of paper written yonx ago in entirely different circumstances says that people should be allowed guns.

[reverse]

I want an Empire, where I am the Emperor.

And I would like a pyramid type power structure.

 

But I would make it law that I and my senators spend one day a week isolated with the poorest members of our society playing sports and recreating together.