jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) (02/21/86)
Tom Tedrick writes: > In article <1294@pucc-i> afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) writes: > > [ ... flaws in democracy ... ] > >> Any comments? > > Good article. I think the fundamental problem of establishing > a political system which is not corrupt is sometimes glossed > over. I claim that it is extremely difficult to implement a > non-corrupt democratic system. I think the corruption > problem is at least as important as the problem of > which form of government is best in theory, ie it is no use having > the theoretically ideal form of government if in practice > it is going to be corrupted. I would say that corruption is an ever-present problem in **> ALL <** forms of government. Like friction and energy loss in any physical machine, it is inescapeable. The best that we can do is design the machine (or government) for maximum efficiency ( i.e. minimum corruption). The more that power is concentrated in the hands of a few people the greater the potential for corruption. "All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Therefore we should design for maximum power-sharing (i.e. a democracy). Our present republican form of government is an an excellent starting point from which we could evolve a true democracy for which the following changes would be necessary: Judiciary Branch: This branch could remain essentially as it is, except that all federal judges and all members of the Supreme Court would be directly elected by the people. Executive Branch: This branch could remain essentially the same, except that the President would only be allowed to use his veto power three times during a single term of office. Later this could be modified to allow no vetoes of laws passed by the people. The President's main function would be to execute the law and not make the law as the name of this branch implies. Legislative Branch: The present structure of Congress could remain, but members of Congress would have no voting power other than as an ordinary citizens. (In the beginning the voting power of the electorate could be restricted to domestic affairs with voting power on foreign affairs to be retain by members of Congress during a certain transition period.) Eventually the Congressmen would mostly function as advocates of various bills which they would explain and argue for in the national communications media. They would still be elected by the same process. They would also occupy themselves with drawing up legislation requested by various groups among their constituents who petition for a certain type of bill to be composed. Groups of citzens would also have the power of composing their own bills to be presented to the electorate if a certain minimum number of signatures are collected for that bill. Bills would be placed before the national electorate on a priority basis determined by the number of signatures on each bill, so that a bill which has 100 thousand signatures would be moved ahead of a bill on the agenda which had received 80 thousand signatures although the one with 80 thousand signatures was submitted at an earlier time. The process of obtaining signatures and voting on specific bills could be automated and collected through the telephone network during late night hours (12 midnight to 6 AM) using encrypted passwords for identification. The price of computer equipment for the home can be expected to fall steadily because of recent discoveries by scientists in the semiconductor industry. Of course, none of the above is written in stone and can be adapted as needs require. I'm suggesting this plan as a starting point. The guiding priciple should be the return of lawmaking powers to the people. J. M. McGhee
jay@isis.UUCP (Jay) (02/26/86)
In <689@sftig.UUCP>, jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) writes several things I must pick a bone with: >>> Good article. I think the fundamental problem of establishing >>> a political system which is not corrupt is sometimes glossed >>> over. I claim that it is extremely difficult to implement a >>> non-corrupt democratic system.... > > Our present republican form of government is an an excellent starting > point from which we could evolve a true democracy for which the following > changes would be necessary: > > Judiciary Branch: > > This branch could remain essentially as it is, except that all federal > judges and all members of the Supreme Court would be directly elected by the > people. Certainly. And soon, we have judges making decisions in a manner which will assure their re-election, and not in a manner which at least "attempts" to balance equities in each case. That is a wonderful improvement! We end up with a body that we call "Congress, Mark II". The point of an unelected judiciary is to have at least one body of our tripartite government FREE from the political expediency that so plagues the decisions of the remaining two branches. Haven't you heard enough rhetoric already from Congress and the President? It's fine want to have a safety valve for BAD judges. But be careful how you design it. In Colorado, we allow the Gov. to appoint judges, but the judges have "terms" of service, at the end of which that judges name is placed on a ballot, and voters are asked whether that judge should be retained. I don't know a SINGLE PERSON who has any IDEA of the way to vote on these men! For such a system to work, somebody must be willing to pay the cost of informing the public OBJECTIVELY (tough to do - somebody's friend has always "lost" a case - in a case, there is !always! a loser). > Executive Branch: > > This branch could remain essentially the same, except that the > President would only be allowed to use his veto power three times during > a single term of office. Later this could be modified to allow no vetoes > of laws passed by the people. The President's main function would be to > execute the law and not make the law as the name of this branch implies. Sure. Then a democratic/republican controlled congress sends up a few bills sure to be vetoed in the first couple years forcing the hand of the republican/democratic (respectively) president, then sends up the ones they REALLY want passed. What's the matter pal? Are you having trouble with the "checks and balances" idea? Isn't that idea itself designed to help curb the "corruption" of power? > Legislative Branch: > > The present structure of Congress could remain, but members of Congress > would have no voting power other than as an ordinary citizens... > ... Eventually the Congressmen would > mostly function as advocates of various bills which they would explain and > argue for in the national communications media... > ... They would also occupy themselves with drawing up legislation > requested by various groups among their constituents who petition for a certain > type of bill to be composed. Ok. Now we get to the basic fallacy in your argument. In order to demonstrate your problem, let me ask you a question. Do your parents, wife, brothers, or sisters read mostly the headlines, and listen to a bit of the news, but it seems as if you are always the one who has the most information on a given political topic? Probably so. Now ask yourself just how "fully informed" you think the electorate is. Have you ever taken the time YOURSELF to go check out the text of a bill, and fully investigate the pros and cons of that bill? AND THEN DONE IT FOR EVERY BILL SUBMITTED!?! Probably not. And you are an activist! Just think of the hordes of people out there who "don't get involved in politics much", other than try to figure out once every couple of years who "stands" for what. (Now the bomb). And you want these (read "uninformed, uninterested, ...") people to shape our country's future??????? REALLY????? I'm for accountability, but most of the people I know have so little idea what the big picture is really about that I shudder to think what this country would be like if the masses effecively 'voted' on each issue, using the glossy, headline opinions of the local/national political 'commentators'. > Groups of citzens would also have the power of composing their own ^^^^^^ (read "lobbies" - don't we already have these? See net.legal flames on U of Oregon/... PIRG's. > bills to be presented to the electorate if a certain minimum number of > signatures are collected for that bill... > The process of obtaining signatures and voting on specific bills could > be automated and collected through the telephone network during late night > hours (12 midnight to 6 AM) using encrypted passwords for identification. > The price of computer equipment for the home can be expected to fall steadily > because of recent discoveries by scientists in the semiconductor industry. Getting bills submitted to congress has never been a problem. Find a lobby, and submit a bill. It's as easy as that. > Of course, none of the above is written in stone and can be adapted > as needs require. I'm suggesting this plan as a starting point. The guiding > priciple should be the return of lawmaking powers to the people. (Hear the bomb explode). The people already have lawmaking powers indirectly, and not to disparage the intelligence of the american people, I don't think any of us is in a position to do anything except designate which of us is going to be responsible for getting all the facts, and choosing the best course. Yes, I think Archie Bunker really lives, and I'm scared of his politics. We as an electorate don't have sufficient time to do the work it would take to make sufficiently informed decisions. Just look at the way your work organization operates - there has to be a hierarchy - somebody has to be there to balance the detail supplied by the whole. Our system may have a few bad apples, but let's not throw out the whole barrel. Jay Batson Friend of representative democracy
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (02/28/86)
In article <689@sftig.UUCP> jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) writes: >Tom Tedrick writes: >> >> Good article. I think the fundamental problem of establishing >> a political system which is not corrupt is sometimes glossed >> over. I claim that it is extremely difficult to implement a >> non-corrupt democratic system. > > I would say that corruption is an ever-present problem in **> ALL <** >forms of government. Like friction and energy loss in any physical machine, >it is inescapeable. > > Our present republican form of government is an an excellent starting >point from which we could evolve a true democracy for which the following >changes would be necessary: > >Judiciary Branch: > > This branch could remain essentially as it is, except that all federal >judges and all members of the Supreme Court would be directly elected by the >people. They should be nominated congress rather than open political convention. And be limited to One long term (10 years maximum) in office. This eliminates the pressure of getting re-elected, and allows replacement of corrupted judges or parties. Limited single terms would be nice even in the appointment, ratification system. > >Executive Branch: > > This branch could remain essentially the same, except that the >President would only be allowed to use his veto power three times during >a single term of office. Veto power is an important check against an over-enthusiastic congress. Presidential Candidates must list their cabinate nominees at least three months before election. People can vote against a specific nominee if they feel the choice is bad, but it is only an advisory ballot. > >Legislative Branch: > > Groups of citzens would also have the power of composing their own >bills to be presented to the electorate if a certain minimum number of >signatures are collected for that bill. Citzens would also have the power of composing their own bills to be presented to the congress for a mandatory roll call vote if minimum signatures are collected. This way, a good law can't be "killed in committee". Congress could issue a referrendum vote with a 1/3 minority vote (giving the minority party some leverage). The total term for any congress member cannot exceed 12 years. Six terms for house members, Two terms for senators. > J. M. McGhee
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/06/86)
In article <357@isis.UUCP> jay@isis.UUCP (Jay) writes: > >In <689@sftig.UUCP>, jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) writes several things I must >pick a bone with: > >> Judiciary Branch: >> >> This branch could remain essentially as it is, except that all federal >> judges and all members of the Supreme Court would be directly elected by the >> people. > > Certainly. And soon, we have judges making decisions in a manner which >will assure their re-election, and not in a manner which at least "attempts" >to balance equities in each case. That is a wonderful improvement! We >end up with a body that we call "Congress, Mark II". The point of an unelected >judiciary is to have at least one body of our tripartite government FREE from >the political expediency that so plagues the decisions of the remaining two >branches. Actually, the method of choosing judges is the trickiest problem in government. Even appointment by the executive is not a real gaurentee of independence. Often the prospective judge must make promises to get appointed. This constitutes a form of prejudice in trying certain cases. So, anyone have any suggestions? How do we choose judges so that they have no obligation to *anyone* and have no pressure to "do the popular thing", so that they can be totally impartial when sitting on cases? And how do we weed out bad judges who make decisions based on personal expedience? The current federal approach is one of the best I know of. Can anyone come up with something that is really better. > >> Legislative Branch: >> >> The present structure of Congress could remain, but members of Congress >> would have no voting power other than as an ordinary citizens... >> ... Eventually the Congressmen would >> mostly function as advocates of various bills which they would explain and >> argue for in the national communications media... >> ... They would also occupy themselves with drawing up legislation >> requested by various groups among their constituents who petition for a certain >> type of bill to be composed. > > Ok. Now we get to the basic fallacy in your argument. > Ask yourself just how "fully >informed" you think the electorate is. > Have you ever taken the time >YOURSELF to go check out the text of a bill, and fully investigate the pros >and cons of that bill? AND THEN DONE IT FOR EVERY BILL SUBMITTED!?! >Probably not. And you are an activist! Just think of the hordes of people >out there who "don't get involved in politics much", other than try to >figure out once every couple of years who "stands" for what. > And you want these (read "uninformed, uninterested, ...") people to >shape our country's future??????? REALLY????? > > (Hear the bomb explode). The people already have lawmaking powers >indirectly, and not to disparage the intelligence of the american people, I >don't think any of us is in a position to do anything except designate which >of us is going to be responsible for getting all the facts, and choosing the >best course. We as an electorate don't have sufficient time to do the work >it would take to make sufficiently informed decisions. Absolutely. I generally spend more time finding out about the issues than most people I know, yet I constantly find myself voting on matters I only half understand. I know how much time it would take to achieve even this small level of understanding for every issue raised in running our country and all of its various parts. I do not have that much spare time, it is impossible. I much prefer having someone else represent me who *has* the time because I am paying to have it. This man is my congressman. The real job in improving American representative democracy is how to better gaurentee that a competent and responsible man get the job of representative. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa