• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Demarchy?

Which system would you prefer?


  • Total voters
    16

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Demarchy ([ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy]Demarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]) 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.
 
Ehhh...no. If such assignments were random instead of elected, the group would have NO accountability to the American people. At least with Congress there is SOME way to hold them accountable, as flawed and ineffective as it may be.

Besides, congresspeople at least know something about law, politics, and negotiation (in most cases). I don't think the average American does. Does the average person REALLY have an opinion on unsexy-but-important issues like free trade, deficit spending, and infrastructure projects? I think the answer is no, regardless of what they tell pollsters.

To answer the poll question: I'd prefer representative democracy, with some modifications to the current system.
 
Last edited:
While the idea that this entices, that people commoners who aren't worried about re-election will be in charge, there is a fundamental problem--- most people just don't give a ****. Jury duty is already one of those "do I HAVE to" ordeals and that is a shorter less critical stint.

Running the Government based on a lottery would also have to ensure that the selection system is not corrupt.
 
To be fair to the idea, and address the people above, it would probably select only people who have signed up to be on the list of possibilities, who would probably be more informed and less apathetic than the rest of the population. Plus, as with most modern juries, a larger number than necessary would probably be selected and then whittled down to only the most informed. Though how to keep corruption out of that process, I don't know.
 
To be fair to the idea, and address the people above, it would probably select only people who have signed up to be on the list of possibilities, who would probably be more informed and less apathetic than the rest of the population. Plus, as with most modern juries, a larger number than necessary would probably be selected and then whittled down to only the most informed. Though how to keep corruption out of that process, I don't know.
Vote for representatives who decide who is the best informed...

:rofl

:mrgreen:
 
To be fair to the idea, and address the people above, it would probably select only people who have signed up to be on the list of possibilities, who would probably be more informed and less apathetic than the rest of the population. Plus, as with most modern juries, a larger number than necessary would probably be selected and then whittled down to only the most informed. Though how to keep corruption out of that process, I don't know.

You'd have to have certain minimal standards.

Me, I'd go with:
- College degree, or self-made millionaire. (education or practical achievement)
- Military service, or some other kind of formal service involving hardships (medical missionaries to the Congo or somesuch) (service to others).
- No history of substance abuse or mental illness, clean criminal record.
- Fiscally sound, no bankruptcies, decent credit rating.
- Not divorced more than once; never denied bond; never successfully sued for fraud or negligence.

I think a random selection from that group couldn't be any worse than what we've got, and would probably be far better.

The fact that a person desires political power is often the surest indicator that he isn't worthy of it. :mrgreen:
 
It's bad enough that the uninformed and apathetic populace is allowed to choose their representative government on the basis of who makes the most unreasonable promises. Allowing them to actually govern would be a nightmare.

I would prefer government by professional bureaucracy.
 
It's bad enough that the uninformed and apathetic populace is allowed to choose their representative government on the basis of who makes the most unreasonable promises. Allowing them to actually govern would be a nightmare.

I would prefer government by professional bureaucracy.


A favorite speculative writer postulated that any type of governmental system can work, IF power/authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. That is, that there is some mechanism by which the corrupt or incompetent rulers are held to account for their actions... and the more immediately-reactive (quicker) the better.

By his theory, you could have a King, or a board of oligarchs (think Central Committee), whose word was law... but if they were subject to being deposed or impeached and replaced quickly for acts of corruption or incompetence, that such a government would work reasonably well.

My person opinion is that, like a lot of theories, it has some merit but could easily break down in the details. There would have to be transparency, and there would have to be some kind of professional "watchdog group" that kept track of the autarch's actions. (What if the "Watchmen" were themselves corrupted and suborned to the ruler's side?)

Then there would be the mechanism for impeachment. Presumably one would require some percentage of the voting public, a simple majority perhaps. Who initiates/calls for the vote? If just anyone can initate a no-confidence vote, you'd be having one every other day. If OTOH it is difficult to initiate impeachement (ie you need a petition with 10 million sigs) it might be too hard and take too long to vote the corrupt ruler out.

In a sense, the US government was founded with something like this in mind. You have the three branches, which are supposed to have checks and balances against each other, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful (works OK sometimes). You have the States as a counterbalance against the Fedgov (hasn't worked too well for about 140 years). Politicians can be charged with malfeasance and impeached (sometimes). Finally voters can vote out a politician that isn't doing what they want (this isn't so easy when there are many incentives to keep your Senator in office for the seniority, and when so many people are swayed by the perponderence of advertising.) So our system works this way after a fashion, and with ponderous inefficiency...but it does work tolerably well most of the time, which puts it several steps ahead of most governmental structures.

Pardon my digression.
 
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.
 
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:
That's some funny ****, Spud. :mrgreen:
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom