posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 03:12 PM
My hypothesis is that our current system of government is based on an antiquated and outdated political architecture. Why do we elect representatives
to form governments on our behalf? There are at least two obvious reasons that spring forth.
1, Convenience, we have to cede control of law forming, economic management and policy decisions to others, because the business of running the
country requires full time dedicated positions to be effective. As a majority of citizens, we cannot possibly be directly involved in each and every
2, We chose those more CAPABLE than ourselves to make decisions, the correct ones based on experience, superior education and greater intelligence,
than we ourselves could hope to make. Thus by electing these poeple to positions of power we acknowledge that they are better suited to the task of
governing us than we ourselves are.
There are probably many more reasons. However I would like to challenge both of the above assumptions and see where it leads us.
Technology has advanced to the point where it may be feasible now, or in the near future for everyone to have a hand in policy making. The internet
and distributed connectivity has made this possible. There will be no more reason to rely on a centralised policy making government for convenience or
The second assumption is the make or break of this. It is also the question that I put to you all. Given a means for policy making to be dependent on
the will of the majority instead of an elected minority, are the masses, you and I and everyone else, as a majority capable of deciding our own
To make sure you understand the principle I am trying to convey here, I am talking about all governmental policy being decided by the masses
effectively being able to propose and vote for each act of parliament, economic decisions, foreign policy, defense policy etc..
Can the majority rule effectively? or is it really best left to an elite minority?