Evolution of Democratic Systems
darwinist
it can be changed. In a representative democracy, this means the
electoral system. Laws and lawmakers change a lot more often than the
constitution, and greatly influence how a constitution is interpreted.
Unfortunately, electoral systems usually get the least attention.
Though they vary a great deal around the world, citizens come to
equate democracy with the system of their own country, and justify its
shortcomings by pointing to its benefits. Like a lifelong Mac person
arguing with a lifelong Windows person, people will feel that what's
familiar and what they've learned to deal with, is superior; because
they know its benefits intimately and understand the reasons for its
shortcomings.
Unlike Mac vs Windows (vs Linux vs FreeBSD), there are dozens of
electoral systems in democracies around the world, with millions of
users, rather than a small handful. And unlike a computer operating
system, you can't change which voting system you use at home without
others agreeing to it (or changing homes).
But it's an important issue, it determines the character of the
government, by determining how factions can gain power, how many
factions can share power, and whether it pays better for a group to co-
operate, compromise, compete or outright slander the other major
groups that get elected. An electoral system determines how many
different parties are likely to get elected, how many independents,
how many people feel like voting is worthwhile, and how much influence
ones campaign-budget has on the outcome.
The modern experiment with representative democracy is a few centuries
old, but nowhere near finished. There are a lot of us around the
world, who can vote for our representatives. We should all be seeking
a more efficient and harmonious means of doing so.
I believe at the moment, that Australia has the best senate system
(regional proportional), Germany has the best lower house (mixed
member-proportional), and the U.S. has the best separate of powers
(executive and legislative branches elected separately).
What do you think?
BernardZ
> member-proportional),
I don't like it as you don't have a member of parliament.
> and the U.S. has the best separate of powers
> (executive and legislative branches elected separately).
>
No argument.
Art
> the U.S. has the best separate of powers
>(executive and legislative branches elected separately).
>
>What do you think?
I think recent history has clearly shown the flaw in having
executive power vested in one individual. What's needed is a
ruling council consisting of the wisest and most knowledgeable
persons ... not a stubborn and ignorant cowboy elected in a
popularity contest. Plato was right.
419
> In the long run the most important part of any political system is how
> it can be changed. In a representative democracy, this means the
> electoral system. Laws and lawmakers change a lot more often than the
> constitution, and greatly influence how a constitution is interpreted.
>
> Unfortunately, electoral systems usually get the least attention.
> Though they vary a great deal around the world, citizens come to
> equate democracy with the system of their own country, and justify its
> shortcomings by pointing to its benefits.
<snip>
> What do you think?
I don't think there is any one best system; I also don't think
representative democracy as it is now practiced is a very good system.
The best that can be said of it is Churchill's remark to the effect that
it's the worst form of government except for all the others.
But why does there have to be ONE social-political system that everyone
is forced to adhere to? For one thing, governments did not obtain their
power over an area by any means that could be considered ethical. And
there is no means of determining "best" in this context; it's a matter
of individual values. I'd like to see a variety of systems, chosen
locally, so that everyone has real choice in the matter.
Immortalist
That may help in some situation, but what about those situations where
the council is partisan or of one mind and that mind emulates the "one
individual," wouldn't the council be potentially as bad or good as the
autocracy in a mixed regime of autocracy/aristocracy/democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)
http://web.syr.edu/~emmcfarl/neustadt.html
http://www.presidentsusa.net/presidential_powers.html
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/msg/dac201ecbff435b0
Art
wrote:
>On May 15, 3:13 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2007 19:39:07 -0700, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > the U.S. has the best separate of powers
>> >(executive and legislative branches elected separately).
>>
>> >What do you think?
>>
>> I think recent history has clearly shown the flaw in having
>> executive power vested in one individual. What's needed is a
>> ruling council consisting of the wisest and most knowledgeable
>> persons ... not a stubborn and ignorant cowboy elected in a
>> popularity contest. Plato was right.
>That may help in some situation, but what about those situations where
>the council is partisan or of one mind and that mind emulates the "one
>individual," wouldn't the council be potentially as bad or good as the
>autocracy in a mixed regime of autocracy/aristocracy/democracy?
A council composed of aging philosophers isn't likely to be of one
mind. Most importantly, aging people are far less inclined
to war and intrusions into the affairs of other nations. It's
extremely important that the U.S. quits playing super-bully.
I'd place the minimum age requirement for council participation
at sixty. Aging philosophers aren't likely to be politically partisan
or have idealogical agendas. They would be far more likely to
be true statesmen/women dedicated strictly to doing what's
best for the nation as whole. Remember that Plato recommended
that the ruling council be paid only enough to live on, so they
wouldn't be seeking their positions on the basis of fat salaries
and retirement income.
Art
darwinist
> > Germany has the best lower house (mixed
> > member-proportional),
>
> I don't like it as you don't have a member of parliament.
You do. In full proportional (such as in Spain or Finland) you have
only system-wide parties, but in mixed member-proportional (as in
Germany or NZ) you have members of parliament, and then top-up seats,
which ensure proportionality and are based on nation-wide voting
results.
This mixed system is precisely to address the objection you raised:
"In designing the electoral system, the framers of the Basic Law had
two objectives. First, they sought to reestablish the system of
proportional representation used during the Weimar Republic. A
proportional representation system distributes legislative seats based
on a party's percentage of the popular vote. For example, if a party
wins 15 percent of the popular vote, it receives 15 percent of the
seats in the Bundestag. The second objective was to construct a system
of single-member districts, like those in the United States. The
framers believed that this combination would create an electoral
system that would not fragment as the Weimar Republic had and would
ensure greater accountability of representatives to their electoral
districts. A hybrid electoral system of personalized proportional
representation resulted."
http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_electoral_system.htm
darwinist
He may not have been able to do so much damage without both houses of
congress being dominated by his party.
I think a strong executive might be kept in check (rather than
alternately given a blank check and then hunted like a witch), if
congress represented more accurately how people vote, and thereby had
more variety in its ranks.
Such variety representing voter's will - as opposed to a system that
squeezes out all but the two most popular parties - might be achieved
with mixed member proportional elections.
darwinist
> darwinist wrote:
> > In the long run the most important part of any political system is how
> > it can be changed. In a representative democracy, this means the
> > electoral system. Laws and lawmakers change a lot more often than the
> > constitution, and greatly influence how a constitution is interpreted.
>
> > Unfortunately, electoral systems usually get the least attention.
> > Though they vary a great deal around the world, citizens come to
> > equate democracy with the system of their own country, and justify its
> > shortcomings by pointing to its benefits.
> <snip>
> > What do you think?
>
> I don't think there is any one best system; I also don't think
> representative democracy as it is now practiced is a very good system.
> The best that can be said of it is Churchill's remark to the effect that
> it's the worst form of government except for all the others.
True enough, but if it's to get better, do we refine it as it is, or
replace it with something fundamentally different? I think
representative democracy is the best theoretical system so far
proposed, as well as the best practical system so far attempted, so I
would advocate refining rather than replacing it wherever it exists.
> But why does there have to be ONE social-political system that everyone
> is forced to adhere to?
There doesn't have to be one universal system, we are talking about a
small but important part of the system, how the rulers are appointed.
If we're trying to have a democracy, of whatever style or culture,
it's important that votes are treated equally and citizens represented
accurately. There are many ways to attempt this, some of which are
more effective than others.
Each way has side effects, some worse than others, and some will
counter the intentions of having a democratic system in the first
place by encouraging divisive, slanderous factions above honest,
principled debate.
> For one thing, governments did not obtain their
> power over an area by any means that could be considered ethical. And
> there is no means of determining "best" in this context; it's a matter
> of individual values.
Perhaps we can't agree on the best, but perhaps we can agree that some
kinds are less bad than others. Finding common ground in what's bad in
an electoral system and what we should avoid, or refine, is what I'm
advocating. Then we'll get closer to "the best" system even we can't
agree on what it is.
> I'd like to see a variety of systems, chosen
> locally, so that everyone has real choice in the matter.
Fair enough, local governments are different to national ones and
experiments are not as dangerous or as hard to undo.
BernardZ
darw...@gmail.com says...
I stand corrected.
tg
But that's exactly the situation now---there is a variety of systems,
and they are chosen locally. Can you explain how it would be different
in your scenario?
-tg
Immortalist
> On 15 May 2007 09:51:54 -0700, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
So you are more concerned about the methods for testing & electing
leaders and methods for increasing or decreasing their power?
419
That is not at all the case now. For example, in the U.S. (and I
believe in most Western-style governments), we have a representative
democracy in which all local systems are subservient to the state and
central federal governments and must adhere to certain dictates of those
governments.
What I envision is a scenario in which there would be a real variety of
systems; so, for example, persons in a area could choose either a great
deal of government involvement in social programs or little/no such
involvement (or even no government at all).
Art
wrote:
Of course. For example, the ignorance displayed by the Bush
administation concerning Iraq was unbelieveable! They really
did believe the population there would cheer them as liberators,
and quickly establish a Western style democracy. The administration
wouldn't listen to people who knew better. It was insane.
It was stupid and inept. You can't have clowns like that running
the U.S. I'm amazed there haven't been more calls for impeaching
both Bush and Cheney.
Don Stockbauer
> On 16 May 2007 11:46:46 -0700, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
Actually, Bush wants to convert all the ant mounds, beehives and
termite mounds to democracy during his remaining time.
Fran
> In the long run the most important part of any political system is how
> it can be changed.
I disagree. The most important question for a political system is how
to reconcile individual rights with truly inclusive public policy
development -- and to maximise both.
> In a representative democracy, this means the
> electoral system.
There's your first problem. Representative democracy already puts the
stakeholders at arms length from policy. We need them much closer. A
system incorporating sortition would narrow this gap, without entirely
eliminating it. Direct democracy would make it vanish entirely.
Conceivably, a hybrid between the two might produce the best mix --
perhaps a kind of parliamentary type committee could be chosen to run
the affairs of government on a day to day basis, interpreting public
policy as best they could, with ideas for broad policy direction
sought directly from the mass of the public. In the case of ambiguity,
propositions could be voted on directly.
At the level of public services, sortition could be a useful tool for
ensuring that there was sufficient flux in the system for new and
potentially better ideas than had become the norm to get a hearing,
while preserving important organisational continuity.
As things stand, we have what amounts to a plebiscitary dictatorship.
You get policy mix A or policy mix B, and that's it. If both sides are
wrong and/or in agreement, you have no choice at all. And because the
results are so predictable, the opportunity for corruption of the
processes associated with public policy is huge. In effect, the
selction of candidates and the shape of policy options is determined
by the big institutions, since the opposition of any one of these
enormously complicates the business of getting into government.
In the end, the selection processes we have ensure that those who rise
to the top are the least scrupulous people and and those most canny at
maneoevering. Because no real policy discussion takes place, there's a
focus on personality and being a cleanskin rather than having
worthwhile ideas. As people become accustomed to seeing the business
of government as being remote from them, the system becomes self-
perpetuating. It's pretty much the same set of suits every time,
unless someone has been naughty or gotten too old and fallen by the
wayside.
Actual democracy would be a very fine thing. It would be tremendous to
associate the idea of government with debating policy options, but I
doubt I'll live long enough to see it.
Fran
Immortalist
> On 16 May 2007 11:46:46 -0700, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com>
So we should mainly take into account of the foriegn polocy positions
and proposed methods of persons' looking to be elected? Seems
reasonable, or are you saying we should increase awareness to such
subjects in order to make sure in the future?
Art
wrote:
>> >> A council composed of aging philosophers isn't likely to be of one
>> >> mind. Most importantly, aging people are far less inclined
>> >> to war and intrusions into the affairs of other nations. It's
>> >> extremely important that the U.S. quits playing super-bully.
>> >> I'd place the minimum age requirement for council participation
>> >> at sixty. Aging philosophers aren't likely to be politically partisan
>> >> or have idealogical agendas. They would be far more likely to
>> >> be true statesmen/women dedicated strictly to doing what's
>> >> best for the nation as whole. Remember that Plato recommended
>> >> that the ruling council be paid only enough to live on, so they
>> >> wouldn't be seeking their positions on the basis of fat salaries
>> >> and retirement income.
>>
>> >> Art-
>>
>> >So you are more concerned about the methods for testing & electing
>> >leaders and methods for increasing or decreasing their power?
>>
>> Of course. For example, the ignorance displayed by the Bush
>> administation concerning Iraq was unbelieveable! They really
>> did believe the population there would cheer them as liberators,
>> and quickly establish a Western style democracy. The administration
>> wouldn't listen to people who knew better. It was insane.
>> It was stupid and inept. You can't have clowns like that running
>> the U.S. I'm amazed there haven't been more calls for impeaching
>> both Bush and Cheney.
>So we should mainly take into account of the foriegn polocy positions
>and proposed methods of persons' looking to be elected? Seems
>reasonable, or are you saying we should increase awareness to such
>subjects in order to make sure in the future?
I'm saying I'm dissatified with putting too much power in the hands
of one individual, for one thing. After all, our Supreme Court doesn't
decide based on the decisions of one individual. And often what they
decide is no where near as imortant as comitting the nation to war.
Art
tg
Yes, this is called the planet Earth. You can move anywhere you like
for the most part, and you can find places that have no government or
various kinds of government as you desire. What's the problem? People
have been doing what you describe throughout history; that's how we
got where we are.
-tg