Is Republicism Passe?

[Magnet Man]

Republicism has become Passe

It no longer takes sending a man on horseback to Washington to represent my vote.
Nor do I need a rich lawyer to give me a stump speech in order to inform me on the merits of any national issue.

I can get myself fully educated in domestic affairs and foreign policy over the internet and then put my finger on the computer key and cast my vote instantly.

If we do this nationally it will mean the end of; representative government; party politics; corporate lobbying; pork-barrel spending; congressional grid-lock; millionaire candidates.

In short: A vastly expensive, wasteful and antiquated election and voting system, which once served us reasonably well, is now clearly redundant and can go into history.

All those who say aye to this initiative, vote here.

[murex]

There is a new form of government that will make our current one look really bad. I'm almost done defining it. I'll post it soon.

[Lasher]

murex said:

I'm almost done defining it. I'll post it soon.

Look forward to reading it.

In the meantime this discussion was being held at length on another forum and I thought I'd go ahead and repost my thoughts on it here. The discussion was more or less focused on whether the "public" could be trusted to govern themselves.

namewithheld said:

When it comes to direct democracy, I'd be more worried about apathy than morality.

Lasher said:

I agree with this as well. Morality is not the issue. The majority is restricted and penalized for the actions and behavior of a few, which, to me, makes it fundamentally unjust. I would have great confidence in a new system which allowed citizens complete freedom to govern themselves. Rather that than a system that preemptively limits, based on distrust in the ‘public’ to make informed decisions. Call it idealistic but otherwise one would have to concede that the average citizen has less integrity than the average politician and that would be a very sorry statement indeed. I don’t think that failure in our current representatives indicates that the population is ignorant… I think it just underscores how impossible and unattainable it is for a few to actually represent the views of the whole.

namewithheld said:

So many Americans don't even care enough to elect people to make decisions for them, what makes you think they are going to care about actually making decisions?

Lasher said:

I think that apathy can be mostly attributed to a near-complete loss of faith in the system itself. In the 18th century voter turn-out was next-to complete because confidence in the system to mirror the wishes of the people was still intact. But if you believe a practice is broken and corrupted… and evidence of that is all around you… participating in it makes less and less sense. Which is what makes the idea of such a radically different approach so intriguing. After all our current system was designed centuries ago based on a completely different set of circumstances… it seems only natural that it will cease to be affective as the dynamics change. Everything must adapt… I’d say that’s not the question. The question is only to what? With the playing field-leveling technology we have on hand now it makes sense that that would be employed in any new governing model. In any case I think it would be very interesting to see such a system acted out on a smaller scale to begin with.

[nickelfire]

I most certainly say aye.
That being said I pose a practical question:
This is a radical change to government and politics (or lack of politics), realistically, such an idea (although it makes clear sense) seems impossible. If we are speculating, that's one thing, but do you think that this type of change is possible anytime soon?
I myself would answer the question with: "it has to come soon", but will it?
Here's to hoping.

[Magnet Man]

nickelfire said:

That being said I pose a practical question:
This is a radical change to government and politics .... If we are speculating, that's one thing, but do you think that this type of change is possible anytime soon?
I myself would answer the question with: "it has to come soon", but will it?
Here's to hoping.

Technological changes take place all the time. Some of it at warp speed. Far faster than social changes. Social customs are hard to change, even ones we know are hurting us. This is so for all kinds of reasons. Mostly for fear of the unknown. Rather the Devil we know .......

Electronic voting is already happening on the social fringes.
Voting for American Idol for instance. One can only hope that eventually it will creep into official politics - but it will not go without kicking and screaming. There is far too much private interest at stake to make a graceful exit.

Pehaps we are not ready for direct democracy yet.
Perhaps Republicism is only theoretically passe.

One thing is for sure, mass change will eventually happen. It always has when exponential population preasures stress out the environment beyond its capacity to support an out-dated social contract.

Global warming is really a global warning that mass chnage is eminant.

[murex]

Yes, it's possible to have such a change come about if we are willing to have it. It's really a question of sticking with the old paradigm, or going with the new one.

Old people and politicians will probably fight it. Politicians like having power, and would vote against loosing any- but the people really have a say, not the burecrats. Old people fear change- they like things how they were back in the day (when they were young).

[nickelfire]

admin said:

Technological changes take place all the time. Some of it at warp speed. Far faster than social changes. Social customs are hard to change, even ones we know are hurting us. This is so for all kinds of reasons. Mostly for fear of the unknown. Rather the Devil we know .......

Electronic voting is already happening on the social fringes.
Voting for American Idol for instance. One can only hope that eventually it will creep into official politics - but it will not go without kicking and screaming. There is far too much private interest at stake to make a graceful exit.

Pehaps we are not ready for direct democracy yet.
Perhaps Republicism is only theoretically passe.

One thing is for sure, mass change will eventually happen. It always has when exponential population preasures stress out the environment beyond its capacity to support an out-dated social contract.

Global warming is really a global warning that mass change is eminant.

Great post MM, I'd have to agree on the practicality of what you're saying here, and because it clearly makes sense, I'd say that you're right. Hopefully these changes do happen soon.

[TarotDragon]

I have to agree with Lasher. When voting time comes around and reporters go around asking who people will vote for, a large number respond with "what's the point?" People believe the government is corrupt, that our politicians really don't care about anyone but themselves. There becomes no point in voting for them so they don't do it. And how can a government function when the people distrust it? And I think that history shows when a government has become untrustworthy the people revolt and bring in a new one. Doesn't always work, but hey, at least they tried.

The question is, how do we remove our present system? I think revolutionary wars fought on a battlefield are a little outdated. Then how? And what exactly would we replace it with?

One thing is for sure, mass change will eventually happen. It always has when exponential population preasures stress out the environment beyond its capacity to support an out-dated social contract.

Global warming is really a global warning that mass chnage is eminant.

Question here that might be a bit off topic. The thing is, it seems when we reach the breaking point, a massive change takes place rapidly. The old system is thrown out without regards to its merits and the new one takes hold. The old one is looked at with scorn and complete forgetfulness of the good it had done in its time. Like with religion. Because the heads of it became corrupt, science rose up and kicked it out the door and to this present day most look down on believers with disdain and ridicule. But most religions preached virtues that people held to because they believed if they did not, they'd be punished for it. That if they did not lead a virtuous life, they'd be punished eternally. Yeah we have a justice system, but you can get away with murder on little technicalities.

So I guess my question is, will we lose something in a rapid change and make yet another faulty form of governing?

And sorry if my statements and/or questions seem a bit silly. I'm not really into politics and such, but I'm trying to broaden my horizons. Really I am.

[Magnet Man]

strictlyplatonic said:

I
So I guess my question is, will we lose something in a rapid change and make yet another faulty form of governing?

There are fundamental ethical behavioral constructs that are indelibly imprinted in our DNA. Each ethic in turn has contributed to the evolution of human consciousness and can never be erased.

Sharing ethic
Work ethic
Courage ethic
Caring ethic
Communication ethic
Creative ethic
Intellectual ethic

That foundation of human consciousness ensures that the trauma that comes from letting go of entrenched customs in order to adopt mass changes of social constructs and spiritual belief systems, will, once the dust dies down, inevitably promote the on-going evolution of human consciousness.

Agreed that death and destruction litters the path behind, but progress always wins out.

The problem with the 5th mass shift of colective consciousness that is facing all of us today, is that we cannot afford to make ther mass shift by force this time. WMD spells species extinction.
So does global warming if it is left unchecked.

We can only hope that our foundational ethics will allow all of us to focus on the intellectual ethic and use our collective reason to make the change peacefully.

Global stewardship must define the ethic of the Nuclear Age.

[Lasher]

I was reading an interesting article recently that touches on the idea of online voting and a radical change in the system. It was in Rolling Stone I think... an interview with Eli Pariser who is the executive director of moveon.org. Anyway, he was talking about how someday, technology could be applied to a democratic decision-making structure using proxies. Basically that there would be proxies on different issues. So when an issue is up for a vote, I would get an email saying that "My proxy voted 'yes' on solar panels" for example. Now, if I don't like the way my proxy is voting, I'd give my proxy to someone else. Soemthing like that, anyhow.

Pariser is a young guy, so again, like murex was saying, a new paradigm, a new generation, where the idea of a brand-spankin-new way of doing things isn't such a outrageous thought.

Anyway, I thought it was kind of an interesting idea as a stepping stone to direct-democracy if we aren't ready for the real thing yet.

[TarotDragon]

Basically that there would be proxies on different issues. So when an issue is up for a vote, I would get an email saying that "My proxy voted 'yes' on solar panels" for example. Now, if I don't like the way my proxy is voting, I'd give my proxy to someone else. Soemthing like that, anyhow.

Okay, exactly how would this work? Does this guy go into how the proxies would be selected and such?

[fay]

admin said:

Republicism has become Passe

It no longer takes sending a man on horseback to Washington to represent my vote.
Nor do I need a rich lawyer to give me a stump speech in order to inform me on the merits of any national issue.

I can get myself fully educated in domestic affairs and foreign policy over the internet and then put my finger on the computer key and cast my vote instantly.

If we do this nationally it will mean the end of; representative government; party politics; corporate lobbying; pork-barrel spending; congressional grid-lock; millionaire candidates.

In short: A vastly expensive, wasteful and antiquated election and voting system, which once served us reasonably well, is now clearly redundant and can go into history.

All those who say aye to this initiative, vote here.

aye.....

[Lasher]

strictlyplatonic said:

Okay, exactly how would this work? Does this guy go into how the proxies would be selected and such?

No, but I theorized how it might work...
As it is now, if a representative you voted for starts voting on issues after he/she was elected in ways that you don't agree with... Say that, in order to win an election a candidate for representation ran on a platform of "I will vote to stop funding this war" yet when that vote came up they did not vote the way they promised, you, the citizen that voted for them, is stuck being misrepresented until the next election rolls around, when you can vote someone new in and hope that this time, this candidate does not succumb to political pressures and fail to deliver. (i.e. the last Congressional election)

Alternatively, with a proxy system, if a public bulletin was made of how each representative was going to vote on a given issue in an upcoming assembly, and your proxy has logged that their vote will be against what you want, you would then have the ability of withdrawing your vote of support the very moment you feel you are about to be misrepresented. Now if the majority of citizens that that proxy represents disagree and withdraw their support, his/her vote would be overruled.

You would effectively be minimizing the importance of the representative and maximizing the importance of the issue itself.

I'm not sure if any of that made sense... the idea is that any system to represent the will of such a huge populace fairly would be so complex that what you would want to do is utilize the current structure that is already in place but change it's nature so as to amplify its efficiency and eliminate corruption. Almost a direct-democracy, but still with much of the checks and balances and prioritizing of our current system. It could work as training-wheels in a process toward an ultimate goal of full-on direct-democracy, or perhaps it would be so effective that it would be, for all intents and purposes, exactly that.

Okay, brain-insubordination, needs down-time (and coffee). Shutting up now

[murex]

My ideal form of government would be this- (read slowly)

A flat tax for all citizens, where you decide where your money goes. If you endorse a particuillliar government program, or want funds to increase for science and techonology for example, you put your tax money into it when you pay your yearly taxes.

A person can also put a certian percentage into personal funds, like retirement or medical insurance.

You vote online, and your vote can be viewed at any time, proivided you have a ss number. This way, you know something is wrong if your voting record is altered.

The president wouldn't have as much power as in a democracy, and things like wars have to be voted on by a large congressional republic. There would be more congresspeople than the US has currently (making corruption less likely), and all politicians would have to have a monitored bank account so that large sums of money can be investigated by a branch that keeps tabs on the government. Re-election should be outlawed if the politician is currently in office, but they can be elected again but only after they stay out for one term. This is for two reasons- one is that they have more power to pull strings while running again while in office, and 2, they are neglectful in their duties if their time is concentrated on re-election.

There can be no corperations funding political campaigns, as every individual can contribute only $100 to any politician running for office.

Judges are elected by the people as well as congress, the congressperson's vote will count as 100 votes, and the people's votes will be counted as 1 per individual.

Most of the tax money paid yearly goes to the state, maybe the ratio would be 60/40 in percentage state to government.

Local judges will also be voted into office by the people. Yeah, there would be a long list for voting, but it's better than leaving burecrats to vote for you.

It's basically a democracy/republic with more checks and balances. Corruption would probably be reduced by about 90% with this system, and the people have much more power.

[TarotDragon]

Okay, Lash, I think I got ya. Just don't ask me to repeat what you said.