Originally Posted by Ele
Why not, indeed?
Seems like a simpler solution than having complete reforms.
Originally Posted by Ele
The very reason it's 'disproportionate' is because there is a natural 'portion' that every citizen holds. It refers to both the power, and the proportion of people. You can't have disproportionate power without having inequity in numbers. They hold extremely more power than they should given their numbers. Disproportionate. Don't make me try to reduce this any further, it's very clear.
I don't agree that having less people means they have more power, but let's just go with that for now.
So all you want is more people to be part of decision making, that's simple enough.
Originally Posted by Ele
Corruption takes the power away from the people (by putting it in the hands of them) which distorts representative governance. Remove corruption, remove the distortion. With the distortition removed, representative democracy is restored and the power is back in the hands of the people.
Well that's not quite correct, it's in the hands of the elected representatives. Even without corruption you can't expect people to act in the interest of the aggregate of people who voted. There are still many factors that divorce the desires of the people from the actions of representatives.
And besides that, there's still the same amount of people in power, we haven't really changed the fact that a few have disproportionate power. Even if there is absolutely no corruption, the senate/president/etc is still a small group that holds power of a huge population.
Originally Posted by Ele
No, I said an aristocracy is an example of an oligarchy. Which it is. You've seen those questions on IQ tests, right? All aristocracies are oligarchies, but not all oligarchies are aristocracies. I only mentioned aristocracies so you and others reading might have them as points of reference with respect to oligarchies.
That may be what you meant, but it's not what you said. Thanks for the clarification.
Originally Posted by Ele
First question, yes. No matter how it acts (and you'd be hard pressed to find an aristocracy that truly represented the people anyway), the fact that power is concentrated to a small group of people makes it an oligarchy. On the second question, high class mobility (which you won't find in an aristocracy anyway (they tend to guard their power)) doesn't change that either, so yes, still an oligarchy.
Well it was theoretical so it's not really a problem if it's hard to find such an example...
But ok.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
I think what matters is the proportion of power held by a certain amount of people, relative the how much power the rest of society gets. If 25% of the population have all of the power once they are elected this is likely to allow corruption. Even if the 25% are trusted experts, one bad apple can do a lot of damage. When you think about immortalpig's suggestion, it is obvious that the experts will probably not make up more than 5% of the population and once they are part of their pool they stay there. This gives a lot of power to a small number of people and is dangerous. Supposedly the fail safe is that since there are many different pools taking care of specific areas, one man can't rule the whole country. This idea is good even if it ends up barely being democratic.
I am concerned about who picks new experts when one of them dies and how the original pools are picked in the first place. Would there be pools for everything and if so who decides how much of the budge goes to each sector and subsequently to each pool? I feel like you have not said very much about you suggestion while ripping into Ele because he used words like "few" and "oligarchies" without a very specific description of exactly what he means when using them.
Maybe a combination of both immortalpig's and Ele's suggestions would work well. The entire population gets a sizeable (30-60 percent depending on the decision) percentage of the vote on certain decisions.
I am concerned about who picks new experts when one of them dies and how the original pools are picked in the first place. Would there be pools for everything and if so who decides how much of the budge goes to each sector and subsequently to each pool? I feel like you have not said very much about you suggestion while ripping into Ele because he used words like "few" and "oligarchies" without a very specific description of exactly what he means when using them.
Maybe a combination of both immortalpig's and Ele's suggestions would work well. The entire population gets a sizeable (30-60 percent depending on the decision) percentage of the vote on certain decisions.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by protonitron
I think what matters is the proportion of power held by a certain amount of people, relative the how much power the rest of society gets. If 25% of the population have all of the power once they are elected this is likely to allow corruption. Even if the 25% are trusted experts, one bad apple can do a lot of damage. When you think about immortalpig's suggestion, it is obvious that the experts will probably not make up more than 5% of the population and once they are part of their pool they stay there.
An idea I've been sitting on for a little while is have a vanilla democracy in which everyone gets to vote for an issue , instead of representatives doing it for us, but give more weight to the votes of people who specialize in a field of study that correlates to the issue being voted on. If there is an issue related to agriculture, those who graduated with a degree in anything agriculture related get to vote with their vote counting for more depending on the type of degree (weight 2 for bachelor's, 3 for master's and so on). This simultaneously ensures that people who are the most informed about an issue can push what they feel is good for the country, and gives an incentive for people to get degrees in useful subjects. For those who don't necessarily care about having a weighted vote can still get their degree in art history or what have you.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
So all you want is more people to be part of decision making, that's simple enough.
My chief concern is that the people aren't involved in how their country is run. So I'd like them to be. There's a quote that comes to mind when I think about this; "a democracy is predicated on the idea that ordinary men and women are capable of governing themselves". Our systems were founded on that premise.
There's an argument to be made, and you've made it, that maybe people aren't capable of governing themselves - should we really expect your average Joe or Jane to be wise enough to decide on national issues? I'd be inclined to think that maybe we shouldn't. Plato, in his Republic, argued as much. It's an education problem.
Where I depart from you in this issue is that I don't think it's a matter of knowledge, but judgement. Say the top climate scientists, experts in their field, are arguing over what the correct course of action to take is. You could be full of knowledge about the topic, but everybody else who is full of knowledge about the topic have dissenting opinions anyway. The public don't need to be expertly knowledgable on the topic, rather they need to be able to decide who makes the best argument. They need to have good judgement.
The foundational skills required for good judgement aren't prioritised in our school systems. There's a book by Paul Woodruff you can pick up called First Democracy and in it he talks about this very issue at length. I don't think your system of authoritative government, based on citizens having expert level knowledge, is neccesary. We simply need to churn out voters that have the skills required to make good judgements.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Well that's not quite correct, it's in the hands of the elected representatives. Even without corruption you can't expect people to act in the interest of the aggregate of people who voted. There are still many factors that divorce the desires of the people from the actions of representatives.
Representative government represents the people. Anything internal that distorts this is corruption.
What other factors are you talking about? Only external factors come to mind.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
And besides that, there's still the same amount of people in power, we haven't really changed the fact that a few have disproportionate power. Even if there is absolutely no corruption, the senate/president/etc is still a small group that holds power of a huge population.
Corruption is what distorts representative democracy, right? Without corruption, the system reverts to representative democracy. If the middle men, the guys between the people and what we want done, aren't corrupt, then that means that it's a direct line. If they're not corrupt, then what we want is what the representative want, therefore the power isn't really with the representatives (the middle men) but with us.
Originally Posted by protonitron
This idea is good even if it ends up barely being democratic.
How do you think the people would react to this? "We know you're concerned about how the country isn't being run in the way you, the everyman, want it to be run, but it's okay because we're going to change to this system where the same thing happens".
I meant that the idea of the experts being put in pools was good because it meant only a section of power went to the individual experts. Most of the pools wouldn't have enough power by themselves for corruption to be tempting enough for the experts in power. What use is bribing experts who choose which sector the budget goes to if you can't then control that sector. It would be possible to bribe all of the necessary pools but this would be a lot more expensive than it would be without the system of categorisation. Also, since the experts are basically in the political system for life, they wouldn't need such expensive campaigns payed for by corporations.
And as ImmortalPig said eliminating corruption does not mean elimination inequality, unless you are talking about the sort of corruption not funded by corporations (e.g. North Vietnam is a corrupt oligarchy with no attempts to even fake democracy but there is no corporate funding involved as far as I know).
I agree with you that immortalpig's idea is no better than your's, but some aspects of it certainly have there strengths.
And as ImmortalPig said eliminating corruption does not mean elimination inequality, unless you are talking about the sort of corruption not funded by corporations (e.g. North Vietnam is a corrupt oligarchy with no attempts to even fake democracy but there is no corporate funding involved as far as I know).
I agree with you that immortalpig's idea is no better than your's, but some aspects of it certainly have there strengths.
Good morning sweet princess
