What we call Democracy is a joke!!! My thoughts on the perfect Democractic system

I doubt theres many on this site who think the Democracies we all live under genuinely deserve the name. In all countries now (not just the US) politicians are owned by anyone with money who cares to buy them.

From lobby groups in the US to big Business in Australia, more and more its becoming obvious that those who supposedly lead us do not have our best interests at heart.

Unfortunately its human nature, these people are accountable only every 3-5 years and apart from these few months they are out trying to be seen and liked they basically just do what the rest of us do and try to further their own interests.

A big part of this I think is the fact they sre so detached from the reality many of us experience, I wonder how many career politicians have genuine and meaningful contact with people who are on welfare or people who have struggled (despite sincerely looking) to find employment for years, I wonder how many of them have friends who have 2 children and cant make ends meet or friends who have a sick relative who cant afford the medical care they need.

Basically the system is broken and needs to change!!!!

Im no fan or supporter of anarchy as these days there are just to many things that need to be looked at in a much bigger picture than just locally, the roads, sewerage and other infrastructure we take for granted. The communications networks we need to keep in touch and use sites like this and a whole heap of other issues that basically require a civil service and therefore some form of government to maintain.

My idea is to bring it back to the people in a genuine way, not a pick your favourite every few years but actually have the people making the decisions and when I say people I mean everyone!!!

It starts with groups of 10 people, you and 9 friends, colleagues or family who are of a like mind get together once a month and discuss the issues that you feel are relevant. This group selects a spokesperson who will then join a group of 9 other spokespeople who will then discuss what each group of 10 thought was relevant. This group then selects a spokesperson who joins the next level and so on and so forth until you have the top 1000 people in a Senate/Congress who are representing the genuine will of those underneath them.

The way you stop this from being corrupted is quite simple, anytime there is a vote on anything each members vote is recorded and then published.
So for instance the first group of 10 people get together and vote on for example gun restrictions, should rapid fire guns be banned? all 10 give their vote and from there which ever side wins their spokesperson votes that at the next level and so on and so forth till it gets to the top and based on what the majority of the people want it is either restricted or left alone.

Every year if you feel the group your in doesnt represent your best interests you may leave it and join another.

There are holes in this system but I honestly believe its better than what we have now.

Id be interested in hearing what others think, especially any faults you see. As a good brain exercise Id like to see if I could come up with a model that in theory would work and could replace our current system.

Cheers

I think your idea is thought-provoking and rooted in good intentions, but I believe the system we have in place now is the best option we have.

If we placed term limits on those we elect, paid them well for the time they serve, only allowed publicly funded campaigns and banned corporations and special interest groups from spending tons of money to lobby the representatives of the people......things would be just fine.

Sure there would be corruption and someone is bound to find loopholes, but any system would be flawed.

So I don't think we need to throw out our current system.....we just need to fix whats wrong with it and fix it immediately.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I feel like what we currently have was designed not to give people a say but to give them the illusion they do.
The 2 party system is flawed and I cant even remember the last time in any country a winning political party actually followed through with any of the promises it made to get it self elected.

The way things are set up corruption is impossible to get rid of as there is only accountability when its time for reelection, in the mean time votes will be cast based on what the politician wants not what the people he represents wants.

What flaws did you see with my idea out of curiosity?

I think democracy only works well on a small scale, large scale democracy is just chaos.

Why are people always trying to change things to suit them why don`t they just move to someplace that is already better suited to what you believe and how you want to live.If you want to smoke pot but it`s illegal in your state why don`t you move to a state where it is legal?
Wouldn`t everyone be more happy if everyone lived in a state with people who had the same values and beliefs as they did.

If i was a penguin i would want to live with other penguins, I wouldn`t live with polar bears and then try to have a law enacted prohibiting polar bears from eating penguins.

democracy works good on a small scale, like local level and in some cases even on a state level but anything bigger than that and you just have chaos.

Democracy has always been a joke. As has been said many times here, America is not a democracy, it is a republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."

Ours system is supposed to be one of the "law of the land", rather than "majority rule".

The problem is, our "leaders" have decided they don't have to obey the same laws we do. And the people have not held them accountable for their transgressions against our constitution(law of the land). Until such time as that happens, I don't see things getting any better.

“Society is well governed when the people obey the magistrates, and the magistrates obey the law”. Solon

reply to post by Tardacus

democracy works good on a small scale, like local level and in some cases even on a state level but anything bigger than that and you just have chaos.

I agree to some extent but what about things like interstate highways, satellites, sewerage systems etc etc
All these things need in most cases a much larger effort and resources than a local or even state government can handle, in one way or another you need a national government of some sort to keep things running smoothly.

Unless we all move into Mega cities like in the Judge Dredd universe under the system you describe areas with few people or less resources would suffer and quickly fall into ruin,

Like network marketing?

The Amway of democracy?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Man, I love this site sometimes.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Like network marketing?

The Amway of democracy?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Man, I love this site sometimes.

Well kinda..... but not really.

I spose it could be reffered to as a pyramid system.

So what exactly do you see being wrong with it, can you point out any flaws for me?

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

This debate is raging in my country right now, our prime minister resigned and the government stood down a couple of days ago due to massive public pressure and protest.

Although the reasons and motivation will be different in your country, here it started with protests over high energy costs but now it has grown to include government corruption, the power of monopolies and organised crime. There is a unanimous feeling here that the system has failed and BIG change is needed.

[The protesters] demands have gone even further to seek an overhaul of the political system in Bulgaria. They have made clear that the system has to be changed in such a way that when the next party comes to power, it can no longer behave the way all governments in Bulgaria have for the past 24 years. There have to be checks on political power and mechanisms to prevent collusion between politicians, private economic interests and organised crime.

Protesters are currently calling for a Constituent Assembly to be formed to change the constitution and develop mechanisms of direct involvement of citizens in government matters. There have been proposals of specific measures to be taken such as: cutting the number of members of parliament to 240; stripping them of immunity; establishing procedures for early dismissal; establishing 50 percent citizens' controlling quota in state institutions.

Source
If the population get what they demand it will certainly be a rough ride for many months, but the end result could be something very special and unique.

There is an ongoing thread here: Abovetopsecret.com

That is what my friend hmdphantom made a threat on this

America there is no freedom

But I think that American people know it better.

+ as I mentioned some minutes ago here , western politicians are inventing new words and abusing these concepts to justify their invasions.


There are true concepts like security , equality , freedom and human rights but western countries invent new words to justify their greed.

But the truth is that they can not hide behind these lies.

The truth is out there, out side of these screens.


strategy of satan

Qur'an

6:112-113

likewise did we make for every messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. if thy lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.

that the hearts of those who believe not in the hereafter may incline thereto, and that they may take pleasure therein, and that they may earn what they are earning.

Link

reply to post by Klassified

Democracy has always been a joke. As has been said many times here, America is not a democracy, it is a republic.

Yet your gov refers to itself as a Democracy.

I thought the US is a Republic like the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy and the system they used was Democracy?

So you think the current system you have is OK?
What flaws or issues did you see with the idea presented in the OP?

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

What flaws did you see with my idea out of curiosity?

What I see as flawed is how would we get "everyone" involved in these groups of 10 people? How would we know if someone is truly a representative sent from one of these groups and what's to stop people from just saying that they are and then voting for their own agenda?

In the end you are still bringing 1000 people from all over America to one central location to decide the fate for the rest of us. What makes it any different than what we have now?

There is no REAL checks and balances or a way to verify that any one person is actually chosen to represent a specific group of people.

That's why I believe our current system is just fine, we just need to put the power back in the hands of state and local governments and put a very tight leash on the people we decide to send to Washington.

reply to post by mideast


I often read your threads with great interest.

I live in a moderate muslim country but am not muslim myself, in my experience most of the muslims here are muslim only in name. They dont pray, they drink, they have pre marital sex etc etc.

Would you like to live in a country where Sharia law is the law of the land and enforced according to the Koran?

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I prefer to live somewhere that people are what they say they want to be.

But these rules are not now implied in these world.

Many people know concepts like equality , but they choose to ignore them.

So I have to live with them until some time I can live somewhere that they are what they want and what they say.

I hope to see the day.

And thank you for your kind reply.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Yes. The "leaders", and the media in this country have worked very hard to get rid of that republic label. It's quite the thorn in their side it seems.

My idea is to bring it back to the people in a genuine way, not a pick your favourite every few years but actually have the people making the decisions and when I say people I mean everyone!!!

I like this, and what you say after it, but the people already have this say, en masse, if they will only use it. Our problem seems to be lack of education, and severe lack of interest. Of course, both of those problems have been exacerbated by our media. Americans have a sense of helplessness and hopelessness, and have fallen prey to a victim mentality in many ways. Those who haven't, and try to stand up, and assert their rights, as you have suggested, often do so alone, because of the division that has been fostered in this country.

The way you stop this from being corrupted is quite simple, anytime there is a vote on anything each members vote is recorded and then published.

Our representatives votes are already published. Nobody bothers any longer to look at them, unfortunately.

The truth is, you have good ideas. Mainly, that you want to be active in improving society. I wish more of America's citizens had that ambition, and believed that together, we really could do it.

S&F BTW.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Tardacus

 

democracy works good on a small scale, like local level and in some cases even on a state level but anything bigger than that and you just have chaos.

I agree to some extent but what about things like interstate highways, satellites, sewerage systems etc etc
All these things need in most cases a much larger effort and resources than a local or even state government can handle, in one way or another you need a national government of some sort to keep things running smoothly.

Unless we all move into Mega cities like in the Judge Dredd universe under the system you describe areas with few people or less resources would suffer and quickly fall into ruin,

The federal government was tasked with a very limited number of responsibilities in the constitution, one of those is national defense. The government has gone far beyond it`s constitutional responsibilities.

This is the list or reasons the founding fathers gave for creating a federal government and the responsibilities of the federal government:
1) to form a more perfect union,
2) establish justice,
3) insure domestic tranquility,
4) provide for the common defense,
5) promote the general welfare,
6) secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

The government has twisted and perverted their responsibilities, the government seems to think that redistribution of wealth and giving people free cell phones falls under their responsibility to promote the general welfare. Note that the constitution says to promote the general welfare, it doesn`t say promote the specific welfare of certain groups of people over the welfare of other groups of people.
The government has completely failed in it`s responsibility to ensure domestic tranquility, establish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty.
In 1790 each representative represented the will of about 33,000 people, today each representative represents the will of over 700,000 people.
A democracy on today`s scale can`t possibly work and it`s not working.

My representative`s district covers big cities, small farming and fishing communities, rich and poor. How can he represent the will of so many diverse people and communities? He can`t, so basically many people in his district are not being represented.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

What I see as flawed is how would we get "everyone" involved in these groups of 10 people? How would we know if someone is truly a representative sent from one of these groups and what's to stop people from just saying that they are and then voting for their own agenda?

Good point, I guess some sort of register would be needed and tabs would need to be kept on who was in which group.

In the end you are still bringing 1000 people from all over America to one central location to decide the fate for the rest of us. What makes it any different than what we have now?

The difference is what was being voted through would be the genuine will of the people, at each level the decision would be advertised in some form or another so no funny business could take place

There is no REAL checks and balances or a way to verify that any one person is actually chosen to represent a specific group of people.

Each group would vote on its leader and would publish who they are.

reply to post by Tardacus

My representative`s district covers big cities, small farming and fishing communities, rich and poor. How can he represent the will of so many diverse people and communities? He can`t, so basically many people in his district are not being represented.

That is exactly my point

With this in mind what do you see as the issues with what was suggested in the OP?

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
My idea is to bring it back to the people in a genuine way, not a pick your favourite every few years but actually have the people making the decisions and when I say people I mean everyone!!!

This is called direct democracy. It doesn't mean getting rid of the existing branches of government but giving the people the right to propose constitutional amendments and to strike down laws passed by legislature. Switzerland has this type of government in place.

The way you stop this from being corrupted is quite simple, anytime there is a vote on anything each members vote is recorded and then published.

Direct democracy does away with the need for this. You don't need to know who voted how if you can just undo whatever they passed.

reply to post by daskakik

Direct democracy does away with the need for this. You don't need to know who voted how if you can just undo whatever they passed.

Under the system I suggested there would be no need to undo as it would be the will of the majority.
The only reason anything would be undone was if something was shown not to work and the people voted it out