how to change a government...

I came across this randomly today and wondered what your thoughts were. It left me wondering, what qualifies a person to help run a country? What qualifies people to make the decisions that affect the lives of millions? Would this idea be helpful or even possible?



"We need to reserve a certain quota of seats in congress & the senate for practicing academics including economists, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists (maybe), medical experts, scientists, and the like. I personally think that a country run by politicians (who are mainly political scientists & lawyers) is downright dangerous. We need to put people in leadership positions that are motivated not by money, power, & their political parties, but rather, by the desire to advance the world (not just the US, the world) through knowledge in their many fields."

I agree completely. Who less fit to lead than a person who wants to be a politician?

Reminds me a little of the concept of Sortion .

I thought this was going to be a thread about Crimea :pinch:

Ya know, get a majority and then arm them with enough guns to annex the area until a 'democratic' election can succeed the new state. Should be called the Demo tactic instead of democratic.

Anyway ramble sorry, ideally politicians would desire to advance the world, but the best salespeople are the best liars, and the best liars get that way because they are usually hiding something about themselves they don't want others to see ie rotten eggs.

Mix into that the popularization of politics by mass media turning it into a celebrity show, and the bar is dropping real low real fast.

I think ideally politicians are meant to be (or operate as if) free from any bias or associations, and work with the best information they can gather at the time from those specialists.

Putting specialists into positions instead to make the decisions would inevitably see them leaning towards their specialty, and science is not without politics itself. It's a mix of problems I think. I tend to look at them individually as people, for real honesty (not as easy as it should be) and a capacity for intelligence mixed in with a desire to serve to improve. The media does not help in that process unfortunately!! Beyond that its probably systematic failings in how things are getting done IMO. So I think the politician is a valid and imprtant role, just that its getting bad people and perhaps needs to be refined more.

The problem is being a politician is a really crappy job that only an idiot would willing do and that's all we have in government.

Brenna wrote: "We need to reserve a certain quota of seats in congress & the senate for practicing academics including economists, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists (maybe), medical experts, scientists, and the like. I personally think that a country run by politicians (who are mainly political scientists & lawyers) is downright dangerous. We need to put people in leadership positions that are motivated not by money, power, & their political parties, but rather, by the desire to advance the world (not just the US, the world) through knowledge in their many fields."

I believe this would be a good idea as long as it doesn't amount to some kind of oligarchy. It reminds me a bit of Platon's "Politeia" concept which I have studied in some detail (with rulership by "philosopher kings") or the ideas of Argentinian philosopher Jorge A. Livraga (founder of "New Acropolis") if you're familiar with them.

Ve-Lo-Zi wrote: I believe this would be a good idea as long as it doesn't amount to some kind of oligarchy. It reminds me a bit of Platon's "Politeia" concept which I have studied in some detail (with rulership by "philosopher kings") or the ideas of Argentinian philosopher Jorge A. Livraga (founder of "New Acropolis") if you're familiar with them.

I am not, but always open to being educated....

Vesha wrote: The problem is being a politician is a really crappy job that only an idiot would willing do and that's all we have in government.

While I wouldnt call me, or my fellow elected officials here at totjo 'politicians', we did voluntarily run for, and get elected to, office...

That said....

That's how we will get change in the world...

When i run for president, I will make a government forum for getting the feelz of the peoplez...

We can just have online polls....

I will leave the logistics of that to better brains than mine...

agree 100%. ndg put it better than me, of course:

http://gradycarter.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/20120831-115749.jpg?w=500

or go here. image link does not appear to be working

http://gradycarter.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-congress-where-is-the-rest-of-life/

Brenna wrote: I came across this randomly today and wondered what your thoughts were. It left me wondering, what qualifies a person to help run a country? What qualifies people to make the decisions that affect the lives of millions? Would this idea be helpful or even possible?



"We need to reserve a certain quota of seats in congress & the senate for practicing academics including economists, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists (maybe), medical experts, scientists, and the like. I personally think that a country run by politicians (who are mainly political scientists & lawyers) is downright dangerous. We need to put people in leadership positions that are motivated not by money, power, & their political parties, but rather, by the desire to advance the world (not just the US, the world) through knowledge in their many fields."

I think ideally there'd be a directly elected president (through at least two rounds). Acts as head of government, chooses who heads ministries, etc, who are specialists, not elected reps.

And then have a parliamentary system that holds the legislative powers, with reps elected in a similar fashion, except the second run is there to define how many votes each rep has. Instead of having just one rep per area holding one vote, they hyave as many votes as there are people who voted for them. The second candidate also gets a seat, with the amount of votes they got during the election. That's representative democracy done right imo.

The government (president + ministers) can make law proposals to the parliament, the parliament can change/adapt them and pass them or simply refuse. the parliament can veto executive decisions also. The president must also sign all laws and can refuse to do so. So both sides can veto anything the other side does.

And when it comes to money/debt, write a debt ceiling expressed in % of GDP into the constitution (which can only be changed/amended by a supermajority in a direct election), and if government/parliament fails to stay within the limit, ban everyone from public office for a (constitutionally) set amount of time.

Basically the politicians are still there but can get vetoed by unelected specialists, and unelected specialists can be vetoed by elected representatives. And neither side can get the country indebted. All of this should really limit the amount of damage they can do through populist politics.