A better system of government?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I didn’t put this in GD because I was looking more for opinions, as opposed for a full-out debate…if it gets to that point, however, moderators please feel free to move this.

I was really, really, really bored in health class today. However, instead of talking, or writing notes to my friends, I instead sat down and attempting to think of a better system of goverment. (Yeah, I’m just weird like that.:p) Any system would be flawed, but I was wondering if there would be something better than what we have now.
These are some ideas I came up with:
There would be a group of 5 main “rulers.” However, they would really have no absolute power. They would act soley as advisors to guide the people. They would have no direct command of any part of the military, in order to prevent any of them from taking over. There wouldn’t be a democracy of the kind we have in the United States, which is more of a democratic republic. It would be a true democracy. Everyone 18 or older would be able to vote on laws and important issues. No one could be elected. All officials would have no major power except in emergency situations; they would only be able to guide and advise. Every four years, a test would be administered to all willing citizens above the age of 28. This test would measure intelligence and capability to do certain government jobs. The offices would then be offered to those whose tests indicated that they would be best suited for each one. If that person did not desire the position, then it would be passed on to the second most capable person. By not having elections, I think that this would take away at least some of the power of the political parties. Washington advised against political parties, and I think he had the right idea there. Also, when important events happen, a newsletter would be sent to all citizens so that they could hear the facts as opposed to the twisted stories told to people by the media. :dubious:
So, what do you all think? Comments? I still can’t think of a good judicial system :confused:…any ideas? What do you think would make the best government?

~Monica

2

How do you ensure that sufficient people vote on every issue, and that they are educated enough and devoting enough time to considering each issue? How do you ensure that unscrupulous parties with interests at stake do not prejudice such decisions through, say, spending on advertisements? Lastly, how do you differentiate between “major powers” and non-major powers?

Just some thoughts, not intended as a dismissal in any way.

3

Ah, yes… because we could obviously trust the leaders to present an unbiassed account of every fact on everything “important”.

::cough::WATERGATE::cough::

4

So how are these five rulers chosen? In elections? But who gets to run? Everyone in the country? In that case, the winner would be someone who had only a tiny percentage of the total vote. What about campaigning? Wouldn’t you end up with the best known people (either celebrities in other fields, or just the incredibly rich) being elected?

So who would have direct command of the military? Someone’s got to do it, and like it or not, that person would have the ability to determine much of the course of American politics and American life. Every military decision can’t be made by vote, because there are far too many, and many military decisions require quick action.

But who would decide what we vote on? Currently, elected officials spend months and even years writing legislation. They carefully sift through the hundreds of possible laws, researching, consolidating and organizing them, before any votes are taken. Who would do all of this work? How often would we vote? Continuously? The American people have a notoriously short attention span. How would you get people to vote, day after day, on mundane issues like highway funding and agricultural regulations? How could you ensure that the people voting would know anything at all about the subjects they are voting on?

This is the one place in which I think we might be able to make some progress. We already have civil service exams for certain positions, which work in a way very similar to what you describe. We could expand the service to higher levels within the Executive Branch, eliminating more patronage. This would certainly decrease the power of the parties.

Who would write the newsletter? What are “the facts”? Journalists attempting to be objective struggle with these questions every day. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as just “the facts”. There is just too much information in the world for us to absorb it all, therefore there must be selection. But selection necessarily requires some kind of bias.

After spending a lot of time studying, and then working within our current representative democracy, and looking at what it has been able to accomplish, along with its failures, of course, I have come to the conclusion that while there are plenty of ways in which the system could be improved, the essential framework, our Constitution, is fundamentally sound and better than anything else I can come up with.

This is not at all meant to be a criticism of your attempt to find a better way. Nothing improves unless there are people willing to look at what’s going wrong and try to fix it. Have you considered a career in government? Perhaps you should do what I did, and do some political volunteer work while you’re in school. It helped me to understand our system much better than just studying it in class, and lead me toward my career path.

5

First of all, there is no such thing a sa “perfect” government.

Why?

  1. Because there is not such thing as perfect person, and since the government would hav eto be compiled of these imperfect people, it will also be imperfect.

  2. Because trying to please everybody all of the time, is simlpy not possible. There will always be dissent.

However, I agree with SpoilerVirgin, it is always good to look at ways to improve the current “status quo”. That is the basis behind our system, that we can change it as necessary.

btw:

A Democracy is a government ruled solely by the people, so that each individual person has their own voice.

A Republic (like America) is a government ruled by a group of people elcted by the people to represent that group and act as their collective voice.

Webster:

Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections

Republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

What then is a democratic republic?

6

Didn’t I already say that?

According to my civics teacher a couple of years ago, we have a democratic republic in the U.S. We all vote to elect officials to decide issues for us. But we still do vote on some issues. Ever noticed how on some ballots, there is also a place where you can vote on a bill or decision that is being made?

7

I’ve asked this before, but - when did these definitions get settled? At university I was taught that a democracy is, simply, rule by the people. It can be direct, “pure” democracy, which has never really existed in a large state in history, or indirect, “representative” (or “Burkean”) democracy. A republic is merely the absence of hereditary rulers; thus a democratic republic is entirely possible (although somewhat redundant).

8

The US is a Federal Republic…

Why?

Federal because the Federal government retains overall sovereignty for the country as a whole, even though individual states are allowed certain freedoms of government.

Republic because the basic rule of law is that all federal and most state based laws are enacted by elected representatives of the people.

These are very basic explainations, though to help keep this simple. But if you do not wish to believe me, ask the government itself, try the CIA World Factbook, for starters:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

A true democracy would not work in the US because of the size of the population. Getting any law passed would require millions of dollars and many, many months of confusion while attempting to edit the proposed law to an acceptable level.

However, there does exist one positive method to assist in eliminating excess waste expenditures and helping to ensure only the requisit law is passed and not a bunch of other questionable items…

It is called “by item vote / veto”. Not just for the President, but for every elected member of the two houses of Congress. So that every individual item in each “package” could be individually voted for or vetoed.

That is just my personal opinion, however, the elected officials are very much against this program because it would eliminate their “pork-barrelling”.

9

Benevolent Dictatorship.

:smiley: