laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/23/84)
Okay, gang -- what is wrong with a meritocracy? Answers like "it can't be perfect" are out, because the system we have right now isn't perfect. I am just looking for something that is better than what we have now. Currently, I think we have a mobocracy. Bread and Circuses. If it is necessary to do something which will hurt the plebs (say increase the tax on gasoline, or limit unemployment benefits, or even reevaluate the whole structure) then you cannot win the election and be honest. You either lie and say you will not do such things and then do them anyway (see Trudeau for a terrific example of someone who can do this again and again and still get elected), or you do not do them and watch things deteriorate, or you say exactly what you believe needs doing and lose the election (watch Stanfield in contrast with Trudeau). This is lousy. would a meritocracy be any worse? -------- 2nd proposed solution: give *everybody* the vote who can make "X" marks on a ballot. In general, the kids will vote as their parents and teachers tell them, 'tis true, but is that any worse than what we have now where people vote as their friends and spouses tell them? if this is so, then what, pray tell chages magically at age foo (18/19/20/21) to make such a difference? -------- Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (01/24/84)
The major problem with a meritocracy, as I view it, is who gets to decide
what is "merit"? And who pays for all this evaluation? It's a great idea, maybe,
but certainly impractical!
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woods