I will be happy to get to that in time, however, for the moment, I prefer to simply define, and agree upon the terms we will be using.
A citizen, is an individual that is entitled to vote.
For the moment, that seems sufficient, until we settle the preceding terms.
Such as, “what is a “government””.
That seems reasonable.
However, consider perhaps I should have said, “…current process to determine if, and then how it fails to be a…”
Which is a more accurate statement of my intention.
OK?
So it’s not a discussion on new forms of government for the United States. It’s a discussion on what various political terms mean. You might want to ask the moderators to change the thread title.
It is a discussion of new forms of government.
No need to insist it be for the USA at all.
However, to discuss this topic rationally, I will insist that the terms used are defined clearly, and agreed on. Until that is done, there is no discussion on that topic, it’s a discussion about the agreement of terms.
You are not compelled to continue, this part if it bores you, however i cannot see any value in your input, if you decline to agree on the terms.
What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters.
If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!!
It’s NOT.
Are you talking new political structure or new economic structure? Because, unfortunately, the two can be interrelated.
Yes, they certainly can be. A good side discussion might be concerning whether they should be.
Perhaps, however, “parliamentary” form of government is not a “new” form of government, and is not appropriate for this topic.
If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!
Well, on the political side, since the Electoral College has been brought up. I’ve been thinking about a modification that would require a winning candidate to get both an EC majority and a plurality of the popular vote. A president’s support should be both broad and deep. Neither candidate does, you have a new election a month later with new candidates. Get a second “split decision”, the president and VP are picked by the incoming House and Senate meeting as a single body. (One member, one vote.) This might necessitate moving the first round to October, making for a shorter campaign season, and who wouldn’t like that? In 2000 this might have given us a Bradley/McCain choice. In 2016 it might have been Bernie vs. Kasich. What do people think?
Discussion about our current system is not discussion about a NEW system.
I am certain that there are many threads and boards you can complain about the electoral college.
I can explain why the electoral college is not a root cause of any failure, it is actually a symptom of the root cause.
I favor a benevolent dictatorship as a form of government. A king and queen whom the people love and a kingdom in which the subjects are treated with kindness so that all are blissfully happy. The End.
Sure, I’ll play a bit.
Dan Simmons’ Hyperion postulated a government which was a mixture of corporate and government precepts- there was a House and Senate, but the leader of the government was called the CEO and they were not popularly elected.
Regardless of the above unwieldy combination, he also created a direct democracy outlet which… replaced? (It’s a bit unclear)… the traditional House of Representatives with, literally, the internet mob. The ‘All Thing’ as it’s called was where any citizen could debate, vote on, and move forward legislation of their liking. You could join it any time, you could ignore it for your entire life and never participate, most people… it appears from one of the stories… go through an All Thing phase in their life, finally signing off to get laid or something.
Regardless, we need to capture that. I live in Joaquin Castro’s district. Why can’t I and his other constituents have some voice on day to day legislation, or bills which go to the Senate?
A bill comes up. Something about funding the FBI. I don’t care, ignore it. Another one comes up, about health care. This is my topic and, once the bill is finalized, I can debate and securely vote yay/nay for it.
Castro could then take his constituents desires into consideration. 'Oh! 3% of my constituents voted on this one measure? And 60% voted for? Yikes, I was going to vote against. What are they saying? … ’
Anyway, that’s my one idea, courtesy of the 1990 Hugo winner for Best Novel: A system which utilizes the internet to incorporate a more direct democracy.
I do understand why that concept is promoted by some.
It is simple, and places all responsibility on one person.
Unfortunately, if there is an agreement to use a dictator decision process, there is absolutely no precedent process to correct non-benevolent behavior by the dictator, except by violent revolt and the ensuing chaos and anarchy.
Which is why most people favor some form of decision process that at least attempts to pretend that the people have some authority and power to constrain a dictator to benevolence.
Indeed, a more direct democracy is what I will end up proposing.
A true republic, is in fact a direct democracy.
I don’t think you understand. “Benevolent” is a non-negotiable attribute of this form of government. It doesn’t work otherwise. You know, like a “True” Republic.
Some of my proposal was inspired, in part, by the novel by R. Heinlein, “the moon is a harsh mistress”.
The problem with a decision process that is reliant on the “internet”, is that so many people have no interest in being involved to the extent that would require.
“go through an All Thing phase in their life, finally signing off to get laid or something.”
Yep, most people do not want to spend their entire existence arguing and voting on the internet.
Yeah, but that’s the thing. It’s like all of us when we first get online- we use it too much and then we develop rationalizations for our use… or stop using it.
We don’t need everyone to vote on every bill. We don’t even need everyone to vote on any bill. We just need a statistical sampling of interested constituents.
I do understand. I explained the contradiction clearly.
You did not seem to understand my explanation.
A dictatorship, decision process, does not have any method or process, besides violent revolt, to constrain the dictator to benevolence.
IF IT DID, then it’s not a dictatorship.
It may be some other form of government, but it’s not a dictatorship.
If you follow this thread, eventually i will demonstrate that what you suggest, is in fact a root flaw, and cause of the failure to actualize a republic.