Fixing Democracy

Seeker

Active Member
"Sociocracy", or "Dynamic Governance".
I followed the link, and what piqued my interest initially is that Kees Boeke was a Quaker, and my male line ancestry stems from an English Quaker immigrant who knew the Founder George Fox and the Colonizer William Penn, although I personally am not of that persuasion. If I am understanding it correctly, this idea of Sociocracy seems to start with each of us, individually, and perhaps first of all we need to know our "Self", as true Philosopher-Kings should, if the interpretation of Plato by Pierre Grimes is correct. The "Neighborhood Meeting" at the lowest level that Boeke describes seems to correlate somewhat with the "Town Hall Meeting", which so many of us have already, and Claude has mentioned that, though we are all together there numerically equal as human beings, there is bound to be someone who is smarter, richer, or more influential, etc. than others at this meeting (first among equals?), and perhaps he/she would be invited to be a representative to the next higher level, the "Ward Meeting", IF he/she is deemed as trustworthy for that position by his/her peers. Could "Democracy" and "Hierarchy" work together that way, or am I being naive?
This is where I founder, or perhaps rather stall, on this idea. Though it seems to me that we already have a model for the Neighborhood Meeting with the Town Meeting, how does the next higher level, the Ward Meeting, get organized? I can see about 150 people fitting into a Town Hall for a Neighborhood Meeting, but then you need some kind of place and pretext to hold a Ward Meeting of about 6000 people, which is quite a different story. This pyramid "scheme" of moving onward and upward could take many years to accomplish, practically speaking, if at all, in my opinion, especially if one hopes to involve the whole world in this eventually. However, I realize that this is a new concept for me to grasp, and I may be missing something that I haven't learned about it yet.
To conclude my initial observations on a rather whimsical note, this is a rather auspicious time to discuss a possible "new world", as Archbishop James Ussher calculated that the Creation of our "old world" began at the "entrance of the night preceding" October 23, 4004 BC. Happy Birthday, Great Mother Earth!
 
Just came across this thread so I thought I'd toss out a favorite 'modest proposal' for fixing democracy: I propose that people should be allowed to sell their votes.

Voters would be allowed to receive payments in exchange for their ballot selections. These payments could be made by candidates, political parties, or by commercial combines. Offers would be posted and voters could elect to contract their votes. These would be verified before payment is made.

Today, votes are effectively bought through advertising purchases with the money going to big media. In this scheme, the voters would get some of the cash. Wouldn't you rather have the money it would cost to 'persuade' you?

Voter participation would skyrocket. Voters following the market would be more engaged in the political process. Yes, most will probably seek to maximize their personal take rather than choose candidates based on issues, but hasn't it been established that voter preferences on issues don't matter anyway?

Finally, there is probably some way to use this to provide public financing for campaigns.
 
Given the replies above which avoid the implications of posting #57, it is clear to me that while democracy can be improved it CANNOT EVER be fixed such that it will work as an effective form of government. That it appeared to do so previously is merely because of economic expansion under capitalism. Now however everything has fallen under the control of financiers, predominantly Protestant and Jewish, whose teachings are that everything is solvable through monetary interactions, despite the rule of usury in modernity.

Hence, Charles, you proposal of voters selling their votes merely invites permanent Zionist domination since they can always supply fiat money to buy off the chump-voters, ever the majority. This is why ancient Rome dropped its republicanism (the USA republic a conscious imitation of the Roman republic) for a system of emperors. What this really reveals however is that individual human character (= personality) is not a mere reflection of the person's life experiences or genetic endowment or intrauterine environment, but is fundamentally different - a fact that the political Left studiously ignores in its constant attempts at levelling and egalitarianism, along with its hankering for a belief in determinism, where a happy socialist outcome is somehow guaranteed by the normal functioning of the universe itself. (Hence the Left's idiotic support for the Big Bang prejudice of our day)

In contrast, the Fuehrerprinzip, the leader principle, will always beckon, since some human characters will demonstrate their right to rule - and others only the right to obey, hierarchy in governance being a necessary principle to create order in this fundamentally disordered universe. This is because the leader, before he or she becomes leader, learns to obey himself, to overcome the natural disorder of one's mind - rather than surrender to sexual degradation (as taught by The Authoritarian Personality, funded by the American Jewish Committee) along the lines of Sex'n'Drugs'n'Rock&Roll. The fundamental principle of hierarchy, and of Fascism, is "together we are stronger," and while Fascism has made plenty of mistakes - notably attributing human character difference to genetic (racial, GV) differences - the underlying principle of fundamental human INEQUALITY remains firm, as it is based on the inherent disorder of nature itself, which principle the Left tries to pretend does not exist.

It is this that gives the death-blow to hopes for a democratic future for national and World government - IOW that each human mind is fundamentally different, not fundamentally the same, hence large scale human governance requires hierarchy and order (i.e. not mere propaganda for Anarchism, Marxism or Leftist Reformism) despite the fact that democracy can and does work on a small scale.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Given the replies above which avoid the implications of posting #57, it is clear to me that while democracy can be improved it CANNOT EVER be fixed such that it will work as an effective form of government.
No, I'm afraid that I don't buy your conclusions made in good ol' post #57, any more than you choosing to post on that number makes you an acolyte of John Kerry, via his marital association to Heinz 57. These people were obsessed with pickles, just as you are with sex.

For some reason YouTube recommended a video to me about Fatima and the New World Order, and this most Catholic clown was going on and on about various people, like Henry Kissinger, apparently not realizing that HK was closely associated with Georgetown University. Or stopping to wonder wondering about Georgetown U's Professor Quigley's same association with the same cabal.

As such, you also need to do more work as to why I should believe that any of your fascist heroes, including the Great Pumpkin, aren't really tools, witting or not, of the same system you're criticizing.

Similarly, I watched another video last night about the Scythians and what great people they were, according to various contemporaneous accounts. By these, they were people of great virtue and honesty, who would not settle down and thrived by doing endless bloody battle with their neighbors, taking what they needed as plunder. Fortunately they eschewed gold and such, except for extravagant displays of jewelry and whatnot. The video then ended crying about lost virtues, showing some white family happily sweating away on their plot of land, having settled down from the good ol' ways of conquest. WTF?

Coherence is a virtue here Claude.

You say that your pure epistemological baseline is guiding you to proper analysis, yet you've not let that dissuade you from institutional Uniformitarianism.
 
Why would we need to have campaigns if votes can be contracted?

What problem is being solved by this?
Maybe I should have use the satire font. My point was that due to voters' susceptability to political advertising, votes are being bought anyway. And as a way of effecting policy change, voting is proven to be pointless. So why not spread some of that money around?

In such a system, politicians would still campaign for pledged votes, looking at them as campaign contributions. Voters might be persuaded to back a candidate with a lower payout who credibly advocates for some policy they want.

Claude, the proposed system would actually reduce the influence of these scary Zionists, since payments would be made through a system where donors would be regulated. Today, ad purchases are unlimited.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
OK, thanks for the explanation.

I would like to see campaigns shortened dramatically, replaced by non-corporate media dedicated to fair discussion of all sides of all issues, maybe even allowing for 'real' debates. That is for such as President and certain others, while replacing elections for such as representatives, national and state, by sortition.

To qualify for a particular office's sortition process, a citizen must pass a non-partisan test covering knowledge of the scope of pertinent issues, while not indicating which side(s) one is on. And under certain situations one must indicate issues for recusal.
 
Continuing my cynical thoughts on elections, I would venture that issues are not an important factor in voter decisions these days. The electorate is sadly uninformed and nobody believes politicians will do what they say. Elections are more like American Idol. Voters form opinions according to how candidates present themselves on TV. Identity politics rules.

I'm afraid that if there were some competency test for voting, less than 10% would qualify.

As a former debater, I'd love to see some 'real' debates -- the kind where there is a resolution with arguments for and against, rebuttals, and cross examination. The format of these staged Q&A 'debates' guarantees only the most superficial coverage.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Continuing my cynical thoughts on elections, I would venture that issues are not an important factor in voter decisions these days. The electorate is sadly uninformed and nobody believes politicians will do what they say. Elections are more like American Idol. Voters form opinions according to how candidates present themselves on TV. Identity politics rules.
But issues should be important, right? Hence the reason for having debates? Or should debates be more focused on a particular individuals ability to win a debate no matter his position?
I'm afraid that if there were some competency test for voting, less than 10% would qualify.
Agreed.

However, I meant that in the case of sortition, that the citizens were those subject to being selected. There is no election in the traditional sense. It is a random lottery selection of those who met the pool criteria.

In fact, I was even just now thinking that sortition could select mini or micro legislatures, each selected for specific issues or subjects, some only as needed.

This would end the need for parties.
The format of these staged Q&A 'debates' guarantees only the most superficial coverage.
Yes, and the present format allows questions to be tailored for desired party and corporate outcomes.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe I should have use the satire font.
I got your drift as soon as I saw the phrase "modest proposal". :) (And I wish there was some way to get the system to use simple typographical emoticons, rather than these silly-looking yellow emojis, but what can you do.)

I'm afraid that if there were some competency test for voting, less than 10% would qualify.

As a former debater, I'd love to see some 'real' debates -- the kind where there is a resolution with arguments for and against, rebuttals, and cross examination. The format of these staged Q&A 'debates' guarantees only the most superficial coverage.
Both excellent points. "Less than 10%" seems a little on the low side, but I agree that a lot of voters are handicapped in one way or another. I'd like to think that with a better education system and better mass media quality, the percentage competency would be larger. And, that "real debates" (as opposed to theatrical posturing across the Great Divide) could go a long ways towards improving the competency of the voters.
 
The debates should be presentations of the arguments for and against some proposition, not a showcase for candidates to display their oratorical skills. There should be a resolution, such as 'Resolved: that the United States should provide free universal healthcare' and one or more speakers on each side.

It's hard to see why skill as debater is an especially important qualifier for the presidency. No one imagines the President squaring off to debate Putin in front of the UN. It could reveal the capacity for logical reasoning and how well the debater has prepared, but maybe a moot court would be a better test.

We have these contests as public spectacles. Media get ratings. Candidates get free exposure. (I would just as soon see a talent contest. I bet Bernie is a great dancer.)

It's kind of frightening to think voters make decisions based on these contrived events. The uninformed cling to the fantasy that they can judge a candidate's character by how they present themselves on TV. But maybe that's what they care about: whose show they will watch for the next 4 years.

Sortition is an intriguing idea. I don't know where it is used in government other than for jury selection, but I can see how it could improve the policy process. Rather than giving the random panel final authority to make a decision, maybe they could be used to provide a clear indication of public opinion prior to the vote. Going against the public will would become visible and a factor for politicians to reckon with. (I seem to recall a Science Fiction story -- Bradbury? -- where the President was selected by lottery.)
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
We have these contests as public spectacles. Media get ratings. Candidates get free exposure. (I would just as soon see a talent contest. I bet Bernie is a great dancer.)
Someone has recently made episodes of the original Gong Show available on YouTube. There is hope for America after all. :)

As such, the Internet has been making some interesting changes to undercut the gatekeeping power of the two parties and the corporate interests as well.
 

Suchender

Member
Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here's how we fix it, Larry Lessig :
.
.
Of course all this debate is about a dying system which is not competitive compared to a multitude of private cities.
Yes, the actual death can be many decades away. But that day will arrive !
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here's how we fix it, Larry Lessig :
An excellent presentation. Lessig's logic is crystal clear and undeniable. Wealthy elites in America control the candidate selection process through their control of campaign financing, meaning that the other 99.98% of voters have absolutely zero influence. Lessig calls the system "Tweedism", named after Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, who said "I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating."

Of course Charles Watkins was trying to tell us the same thing, gently and humorously, above...
 
So all are to bow before the
Here's-how-we-fix-it-Larry

Of course all this debate is about a dying system which is not competitive compared to a multitude of private cities.
Yes, the actual death can be many decades away. But that day will arrive !
The Larry democrats are doomed before they start because the masses do not have the money (let alone the collective will:eek:) to ensure the democratic nomination process - only the rich do, but it seems that Fix-it-Larry & Co. haven't worked that out yet, judging by the frenetic clapping!

What is needed is the F*, the leader principle, coupled to a new hierarchical system which can benefit all, rather than the mob rule (i.e. democratic) hankering still dominant in the West. Russia has learnt this under Putin, why can't the West?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very true, Richard, especially the highlighted words...
Once again, Claude, your binary approach is at work, ... and no longer welcome.

Because the present approach is a problem, you always have one binary solution at hand, fascism.
...since most in the West, and even on this website, are fixated on mob rule as the answer to everything political - and so only welcome that sort of limited and prejudicial thinking, which, as I show above, leads absolutely nowhere under a Liberal system, however embedded it might be.:cool: Luckily as people mature from bitter experience they come to realize the fundamental importance of differential human character - and the need for a deeper philosophical understanding to match this.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What is needed is the F*, the leader principle, coupled to a new hierarchical system which can benefit all, rather than the mob rule (i.e. democratic) hankering still dominant in the West. Russia has learnt this under Putin, why can't the West?
Der F* leader principle?? I can't overstate how offensive this is. Do I have to explain why? No, I shouldn't have to waste my time. It should be perfectly obvious.

I apologize for having been distracted the last few days, and unable to police this website. But, this passage had to go.

I had to delete one other highly offensive "joke" from Mr. Badley recently. This is Strike Two.

Claude: If you want to keep advocating "hierarchicalism", or fascism, or whatever you call it: you are going to have to answer our repeated questions about how this is to be implemented. If we choose "hierarchicalism" as our system of government, how are we going to prevent such as Herr Hitler from rising to power and carrying out exterminationist programs against the less favored? We are here to have a real discussion, not to provide a platform for endless ranting.

Or better still, let's talk about ancient gnosticism for awhile, since that's an academic specialty of yours that's much more relevant to this website.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Russia has learnt this under Putin, why can't the West?
I almost let this slide. Russia, a fascist dictator's paradise? Really?

We've extensively discussed the actual situation in Russia, here at this thread, and it's far too much to summarize here. But there's certainly no open and widespread rejection of the "Liberal system" there. On the contrary, Putin claims to be a democratically elected leader of a liberal (capitalist) system, albeit rejecting Western views of cultural and gender pluralism.
 
Top