View Poll Results: Which system would you prefer?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Demarchy

    5 27.78%
  • Representative Democracy

    9 50.00%
  • Other

    4 22.22%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Demarchy?

  1. #11
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,874
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Demarchy?

    it wouldn't work, whats to stop the people who are randomly chosen focussing spoecificly on something that effects them, and they ignore everything else, corruption is impossible to not have, if there was no corruption, we'd all be communist.

    and on another note, did someone mention australian philosophers?
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA"]YouTube- Monty Python - Bruce[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE7Fe1cGLPk"]YouTube- Monty Python Bruce's Alcohol Philosophy song[/ame]
    Last edited by spud_meister; 02-06-10 at 12:15 PM.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,168

    Re: Demarchy?

    That's some funny ****, Spud.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,168

    Re: Demarchy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Goshin,

    The issue that arises in your post is probably the oldest citizen to state dispute; how does one stop an official from being corrupt?

    The only cures for corruptibility is eliminating humans from being leaders, or changing your perspective of what corruption is. In one mindset corruption by the masses where the actions of the Federal Government becomes populist in nature is still corruption.

    If you are on the receiving end of corruption, as we always find corruption in terms of a payoff for someone, then you might see the Federal Government as not corrupt, but generous. Does not mean that they are, but it's a bi-directional perspective.


    You raise some excellent points. To me, the social-welfare'ism of the past few decades is a corruption of our system. To my 80yo mother, Social Security is her due, because my father "paid into the system" for nearly fifty years. To many on welfare, they probably believe it is their right to have their "basic needs" covered because of some percieved social injustice built into our society.

    This takes us back to the issue that a law or act of government can be popular, and still be a very bad thing for the country.

    I'm tempted to define corruption as not only "any time you take money/favors/etc in return for actions against the public good", but also "any time you use the PEOPLE's tax money to buy the favor of a voting demographic."

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #14
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Demarchy?

    I voted for Demarchy.

    It would not suprise me a bit if randomly selected citizens
    did much better than professional politicians, and I would
    like to see them given a chance, provided there is 100%
    rotation of office every two years or so.

    I also think it would be best not to implement it at the
    national level until several states have tried operating
    under it for a few terms first.

  5. #15
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Demarchy?

    I'd rather stick with our current system. Even if the only thing a politician is competent at is political weaseling, that still puts them above the average voter. I fear stupidity more than malice in running the government. 1 idiot in charge of foreign policy and the military can cause far more harm than 100 years of corruption.

  6. #16
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Demarchy?

    I think a better solution would be some kind of "representative technocracy." For example:

    Congress appoints a panel of 5 (or however many) experts to examine an issue and propose a solution. After the panel has been appointed, congressmen and panel members are not allowed to communicate with each other at all. The panel studies the issue, formulates their recommendations, submits them to Congress, and answers any questions or concerns that congressmen have. Congress then gives an up-or-down vote to the entire package, with no changes.

    I think this is the way the vast majority of legislation, especially at the federal level, should be done.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #17
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Demarchy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Demarchy (Demarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is a system of governance by a randomly selected group of people. The term was coined by Australian philosopher John Burnheim in 1985. The system has been used by the ancient Athenians and the Amish. Basically, the idea is that people in charge would still represent the views of the population, but without the problems of corruption for political gain, the influence of lobbyists and special interests, career politicians, and voter ignorance and disinterest; people in charge would make decisions solely based on what they believe.

    According to Rasmussen, 45% of American voters think that a group randomly selected from the phone book would do better than the current Congress, while 36% disagree.


    Just read about this today. An interesting idea, though I'm not sure how well it would work out in practice.
    I prefer a representative democracy. Grabbing some schmuck off the street is no guarantee that individual will not be just as corrupt or as incompetent as the people in office. Really the only way to eliminate corruption is to make politicians read the bills before signing them, make them read the bills out loud and explain in layman's terms what it means and why we need it in front of a tv camera and if a politician writes an amendment or something out of a bill then make that politcian read out loud in front of a tv and explain it layman's terms what it means and why we need or do not thing this particular thing he is adding or removing, Term limits ensure that they are not in office long enough to become corrupt, posting bills online perhaps days, or weeks prior to them voting on it and one subject at a time would eliminate corruption.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #18
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Demarchy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Demarchy (Demarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is a system of governance by a randomly selected group of people. The term was coined by Australian philosopher John Burnheim in 1985. The system has been used by the ancient Athenians and the Amish. Basically, the idea is that people in charge would still represent the views of the population, but without the problems of corruption for political gain, the influence of lobbyists and special interests, career politicians, and voter ignorance and disinterest; people in charge would make decisions solely based on what they believe.

    According to Rasmussen, 45% of American voters think that a group randomly selected from the phone book would do better than the current Congress, while 36% disagree.


    Just read about this today. An interesting idea, though I'm not sure how well it would work out in practice.
    Well, you have to remember that citizenship in Athens was pretty limited compared to U.S. citizenship. It was composed of adult Athenian men who had completed their military service. Also, Athenian citizenship could be stripped for some actions, such as failure to pay a debt to the state. This limited the pool of people who would choose lots for public office.

    Similarly the Old Order Amish use a form of demarchy, but it is not totally random. Once a position is vacant, potential officeholders must be nominated by several people. Once there are enough nominees, they are randomly selected. This means that all potential officeholders have the trust and endorsement of several people, and so is not truly random.

    Several people here have commented that demarchy among a select population may be beneficial, so I'll add my own unique interpretation on it. That is that, among the select group that is chosen randomly to serve as officeholders, it will more likely than not create a proportional amount of particular groups (ethnicities, occupations, etc.) into office. So, in effect, it also could be seen as an ancient form of proportional representation in government, of which I'm all for.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •