If Voting Doesn't Work, What Other Methods of Changing the System Would You Propose?

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest" - Winston Churchill

Personally, I am all for "Benevolent Dictator", but I doubt I will get many takers on that point.

The problem is not Democracy, it is the current state it is in. Regardless of your party affiliations, I am willing to bet that most would agree the system is broken.

1. Big-Money needs to removed from the system. No more corporate, union or "Superpac" donations. Period.
2. The Endless Election Cycle must be replaced by a much briefer time period.
3. Evolution away from a two-party system. The current system creates an "Us vs. Them" mentality that makes it harder to come together as a country once the election is over.

originally posted by: Leonidas
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest" - Winston Churchill

Personally, I am all for "Benevolent Dictator", but I doubt I will get many takers on that point.

The problem is not Democracy, it is the current state it is in. Regardless of your party affiliations, I am willing to bet that most would agree the system is broken.

1. Big-Money needs to removed from the system. No more corporate, union or "Superpac" donations. Period.
2. The Endless Election Cycle must be replaced by a much briefer time period.
3. Evolution away from a two-party system. The current system creates an "Us vs. Them" mentality that makes it harder to come together as a country once the election is over.

I think the easiest solution to this is term limits. Say 8 years and your done in government. This removes the ability to amass power like many long term senators and congressman.

originally posted by: dragonridr

No each state votes to send representatives just to ilimimate just what you fear. Read the constitution...

Yeah, I know what it says. Our local, state representatives are all crooked, fascist sociopaths too.

It is not just a federal problem.

So, again, I ask: What else can you do?

a reply to: Leonidas

I'd take benevolent dictator in a second it's been proven to be the absolute most effective and best form of government imaginable. Only problem is, it has like the shortest shelf life imaginable.

When you get it you have the luckiest society imaginable. Once the guy kicks the bucket it's usually right back to business as usual though, and that kick in the nuts can be too much to bear.

F# it, I give up.

Did you guys understand anything in the OP?

Voting is not a solution. Reforming political processes by means of political processes is futile when the political processes are corrupt to the core.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Leonidas

I'd take benevolent dictator in a second it's been proven to be the absolute most effective and best form of government imaginable. Only problem is, it has like the shortest shelf life imaginable.

When you get it you have the luckiest society imaginable. Once the guy kicks the bucket it's usually right back to business as usual though, and that kick in the nuts can be too much to bear.

Absolute power corupts absolutely . Even if you get a benevolent dictator they won't remain that way. See it involves humans and one thing you can count on is human nature.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: glend

I like that idea, but what do we do once automation is complete?

How can we afford goods created by automation if we have no jobs. Seems economy itself might self limit the expansion of automation to a degree.

a reply to: dragonridr

Sorry I don't believe that.

"Those that seek power, don't deserve it. Those who deserve power, don't seek it."

Is more what I believe.

I think the absolute power corrupts absolutely thing is a pile of horse poo used to try and convince ourselves that it's not our fault we're ruled by monsters and make us feel better about letting them get away with it by making excuses for them by blaming power rather than the quality of their character.

The issue isn't that absolute power corrupts it's that the only people that ever have power are power hungry psychopaths that care about nothing but their own ego and acquiring more power, and we're too lazy to really put in the effort required to have good leaders of character.

There are good decent people out there of good moral fiber and character. I've seen them, and no amount of power is going to magically twist them suddenly into psychopathic monsters.

a reply to: glend

At that point they won't need us to buy their goods. They'll have their perfect little kingdom with only them and possibly some sex slaves.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: glend

If everyone refused to work the government would have no choice but to submit to the people's wishes. Worked for ghandi riding India of the british

A general strike?

What good would that do if the state has a total monopoly on force, and there is no political resistance because the entire process has been infiltrated, co-opted, and rendered useless?

They simply put a gun to your head and give you an ultimatum: work or die.

But they don't. The US army couldn't control Iraq with a population of 33M so how are they going to force 318 million americans to play ball if they don't want too.

a reply to: Puppylove

I was thinking exactly the same as you I wrote my previous comment but didn't want to depress people any further. I do think the the old world is dying from insatiable greed and corruption so change has to occur eventually, Hopefully it will be for the better.

Kids, kids, kids listen up. Keep the masses happy, well fed with a slight chance of better future and you wouldn't have change...just hopelessness and the opportunity to get laid Friday night.

Sad isn't it....but when the house payment comes around next week your focus isn't on political change, doesn't mean anything without food for the kids, a roof over their head(s) and a piece of pussy every once in a while.

Let's hear it for change...right after the pay check clears the checking account.

Cheers

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: glend

If everyone refused to work the government would have no choice but to submit to the people's wishes. Worked for ghandi riding India of the british

A general strike?

What good would that do if the state has a total monopoly on force, and there is no political resistance because the entire process has been infiltrated, co-opted, and rendered useless?

They simply put a gun to your head and give you an ultimatum: work or die.

But they don't. The US army couldn't control Iraq with a population of 33M so how are they going to force 318 million americans to play ball if they don't want too.

They can't this is just fear mongering. Reality is thr US is to large to be controlled by force. If thr people stood up tomorrow and said enough is enough there is nothing the gov't could do. This is why they control people with free stuff. That is a method of control that they can do. Only problem is eventually there no money left for free stuff and the house of cards crumbles. For now it's mainly keeping minorities in line and we'll we can afford that. But an entire country were everyone gets and no one pays and it all comes crash in down. Good example is Greece thet set up more and more social programs borrowed more and more to pay for them. And now they have a problem they can't afford it and have to start taking away free stuff. And things like that leads to civil wars.

Well first you have to figure out what is going on. Then you have to figure out who is causing the problems. Then you have to get rid of them.

a reply to: NthOther

Princeton study has proven it doesn't work.

What needs to be done is for the individual democrats and individual republicans to get their heads out of their arse and temporarily come together to fight corruption against the govt,MSM, and special interest.

Together we can set the topics and issues that SHOULD be focused on.

1. Closing the Revolving door between DC and Lobbyists.
2. Congretional Term limits.
3. Lobbying reform.
4. Only Govt funding and resources for elections and debates.
5. Accountability.
6. True transparancy in govt.

Would be a start.

originally posted by: glend
If everyone refused to work the government would have no choice but to submit to the people's wishes. Worked for ghandi riding India of the british

The British had an ounce of moral fiber.

They tried to do that in Tiannenmen Square too and the Chinese more or less drove right over them with tanks.

The other problem you run into is that too many have families and small children. How do you invest them into the idea that they should actively look their starving youngsters in the face and tell them, "I'm sorry kiddo, mommy and daddy are not bringing home your dinner to make a political point!" Because that is the reality behind trying to force a total country-wide strike.

And you still face the truth that the government will come and start killing until they compel people to take up their work again.

Nothing prevents them from brutalizing you however they see fit, and you won't be able to simply leave either. It's generally at this point that the walls are put up to keep you in.

If you want a good example, see N. Korea or you might study what the Soviets did to the Ukraine.

a reply to: interupt42

The problem with your #4 is that it can very easily be gamed to only favor incumbents or the party favored candidates even with term limits, so you will still have corrupt systems.

If a candidate does not meet with party approval, you will not see him or her ... ever. So there will never be outsiders.

Lawfully enforced global vote.

Nothing else will do....democracy is designed to grow and grow until there is a total group vote or consensus.

Building min-democracies within conflicting borders defeats the purpose of a true Democracy by proxy.

Democracies growing side-by-side must ultimately by proxy conflict,so we need a Global consensus.

7.125 Billion votes must be tallied to rightfully handle this planets resources and decision making..........NOT A REPUBLIC.....no borders........and every single human alive is recorded named and must vote....no one shall ever again be born or die without having their voice heard.

This is a logistical reality today.

Voting could work, but needs to be untamperable. I think this idea would work. Ballot papers, marked in pen, then folded and put in clear glass or plastic boxes. Each voting hall deals with a small number of voters, so many halls are needed. At the end of the voting session, the boxes are opened in the same hall, they do not leave the venue. General public and candidates can watch the count. It won't take too long to count the votes as the number of papers are smallish. When the count is over, and verified that it is correct by the onlookers, and can be checked at any time, the numbers are uploaded to a central board showing the venue name and district and the number of votes for the different parties. If anyone tries to change the vote number on the board, there would be plenty of witnesses to make it known the numbers are not correct. Scans, video, photos of the count and results could be taken during the counting process to prove the original result, should there be any attempt to alter the final result. This evidence could also be added to the result board.

a reply to: one4all

No, pure democracy is tyranny of the majority.

Let me explain. Look at the complicated issue of water rights in the West. Small rural communities need water too as do farmers and ranchers, but you tell me -- when put to a pure democracy vote, who wins the water: the small communities, farmers and ranchers or the big cities like Las Vegas which needs to feed that tourism industry with its fountains and hotels?

If you think the city folk will be altruistic and understand that the smaller rural population is important to the livelihood of their city in its own way by keeping them fed, you underestimate the short-sightedness of humanity. Those fountains in Vegas will always be more important.

You will have similar issues all over the world with larger populations who simply do not understand or do not care to understand the needs of smaller populations vis a vis their own who will vote into law practices and policies that will be utterly ruinous.

This is exactly why we have a Republic so that those smaller populations can be represented in a manner that actually does give their voices a weight on par with the larger ones.