People always complain that “politicians aren’t ‘doing’ anything”. I think the more politicians don’t do, the better off we are. That’s why the Founding Fathers set up our system of checks and balances. Most of histories greatest atrocities were caused by someone with a bright idea who decided to unilaterally “do something”.
Because who wants to throw away their vote? Everybody who voted for Nader knew he couldn’t win, knew he did not have enough popular support to win even if he and the Republican had been the only candidates on the ballot. They just wanted to make a statement and send a message. Which is a perfectly valid political goal, but it raises the “opposition-splitting” problem: In 2000, every vote for Nader was arguably a vote for Bush, because it was a vote that could have gone to Gore if Nader were not in the race. (On the other side, every vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore.) And in hindsight there really was an important difference between Bush and Gore, despite the Nader camp’s rhetoric to the contrary.
There is, however, a fairly simple solution to that problem: Instant-runoff voting.
So voters really do care about the difference between the Dems and the Pubbies? Therefore, that’s more important than “corruption” among career politicians.
Yes, I support that system, because of the “wasted vote” argument. However, I don’t think it sorts out the problem of perceived corruption among career politicians.
(And it’s also in spite of the fact that it would have meant that George H.W. Bush would have won the 1992 election instead of Bil Clinton – since, to make up for that, Al Gore would have beaten George W. Bush in 2000.)
Wow. They gave California a C on any of the four criteria, let alone an average of a C on all of them? Amazing.
One wonders what would be bad enough for an F? Declaring war on a neighboring state?
I’m not sold on instant runoff voting. It sure feels reasonable, applied ex post to egregious third party spoilers like Nader 2000, but I don’t think I’m ready to abandon the ex ante incentives (to build coalitions) that straight plurality voting has to offer. Not saying its a bad thing, I just don’t think IRV is the panacea its supporters claim it to be.
There is actually considerable political science research that suggests that Clinton would have come away the victor in the Electoral College if the Perot supporters had voted their second choice. No link, sorry, I just remember reading a couple polisci journal articles about that back in college.
The Founding Fathers set up our system of checks and balances because they still weren’t fully on board with the principles of democracy. I think a lot of “histories greatest atrocities” were committed in countries that weren’t strong liberal democracies like ours. I have confidence that our electoral cycle and respect for individual rights would prevent more such atrocities.
No one here has theorized a third choice - Professional Officeholders. I see this as distinct from Career Politicians. While a Career Politician may have planned their life choices around running for office some day, and follow a tried and true path (State Assembly, State Attorney General, State Governor), a Professional Officeholder would have a prescribed education, professional designation, and advancement path (similar to a Military Officer.)
Also, at the local level someone could be a Mayor of a small city and then move up in rank to be Mayor of a larger city…Governor of Vermont then Governor of New York, etc.
For consumers (voters) we would have some confidence that those individuals running have demonstrated expertise and achievement.
Thoughts?
Except that means that what happens is that we accumulate more and more problems that aren’t being solved ( our rotting infrastructure for example; and a multitude of environmental/resource problems ). IMHO, America has an excellent chance of collapsing in the next 20-50 years, simply because more and more problems are being left to fester because the political system is too paralysed to deal with them. And once they get too big, neither the government nor anyone else will be able to deal with them properly even if the logjam breaks.
Agree.California is a mess. It’s an example of how NOT to do things.
Examples? Or are you suggesting a new thing here? Has this been tried in other countries (since the Confucian bureaucracy was abolished in China)?
Yes, I’m suggesting a new thing.
We expect our Lawyers to complete a great deal of education and pass a Bar Exam and be certified to practice in each state individually. We expect our Doctors to be educated and certified. Teachers, Engineers, etc. etc. etc. More recently professional certifications have been developed for IT Project Managers and HR Professionals, with required education, testing, and continued education (granted, you can achieve these over a couple of long weekends, but still…).
Elected Office holders? Not so much…
I believe you are describing bureaucrats, which everyone seems to hate, so why you think they would be a good choice to be in complete charge, I don’t know.
Mark Twain, in his 1870 short story “The Curious Republic of Gondour,” imagined a republic where everybody gets one vote, but some people are awarded additional votes based on their education and/or wealth:
Feel free to express your own views on that last bit. 
Another feature is that there are, not educational requirements, but knowledge requirements, for eligibility to run for public office or get a civil-service job:
Well, Twain was writing at a time when democracy in America, ever since the advent of Jacksonian populism, had meant it actually helped a candidate’s chances somewhat to be a “man of the people,” crude and ignorant (and some, remarked Isaac Asimov in a popular history of the period, successfully pretended to be much more crude and ignorant than they actually were). In America today, people with graduate or professional degrees actually do wield political power far out of proportion to their numbers, and we need no solution to the problem Twain perceived; our problem is rather the reverse, to empower the rest of us.
I was wondering, Oakminster . . . Do you apply this same assessment to the other democracies in the world that have career politicians, i.e., all of them? I know of none that has not a career-political class . . . well, not a social class, but an occupational category. And many of those democracies do very well indeed. Which suggests your problem is with democracy as such, but why is not clear.
Compare cities with a city manager system (where this is in fact how it works) to cities with a “strong mayor” system. I think perhaps the strong mayor is better.
Why?
City managers are hired (at least in my town) by elected non-professional middlemen. The city managers are hired guns from outside & not directly accountable to the people. The city council are a bunch of dilettantes who have other jobs & incomes, thus have divided interests & distractions.
Strong mayors are voted in, act as professionals, & actually rule. They are also responsible to the people.
I’m not sure which is better, which is worse.
I have little to no interest in the internal affairs of other countries. Also have no problem with democracy as an abstract concept–no idea where you got that from. I do not like nor do I trust people who appear to live only to run for office. It’s supposed to be about service to one’s country, not fellating one’s ego as a career choice.
Excellent! Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery!
But, there is no dichotomy there, between “service to one’s country” and “fellating one’s ego as a career choice.” And you do have a problem with democracy as such, if you excoriate something about it that results everywhere it has been tried in the modern world, i.e., the emergence of an occupational category of career politicians. And you still have not satisfactorily explained, anywhere in this thread, how we can do without such; every feeble, flailing attempt on your part to do so betrays a truly astonishing (for this forum, at leasat) level of ignorance about public-policy formation.