Forum Post: Experimental Democracy
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 2:14 a.m. EST by PBishop
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've wondered for a long time if it's the nature of the American political system to give preference to those candidates willing to do and say whatever they think will win them office over those who may have better ideas but are incapable of misrepresenting their intentions.
Being a senator or the President is at least as important and solemn a duty as is serving on a jury, but would you want someone on the jury at your murder trial who volunteered for the honor? I'd suspect, and I think rightly so, that such a person would be the worst possible juror.
Perhaps we should select candidates for office at random, and eliminate them from the running by a process of elimination similar to how we remove potential jurors from the pool.
If we did, do you think things would be any worse than they are?
how about we let everyone vote on stuff: http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-demand-informed-direct-democracy-online-whos-wit/
is this whats known as despotism?
I agree that the people who not just volunteer, but spend millions of dollars to get the power that goes along with an important position are among the worst people who could possibly get it. The whole system is structured so that the people who are the most greedy, the most self-interested, the best liars, or just the richest are the ones who hold the highest political positions.
Having screened-random candidates would probably be a huge step up from the current system. But why shouldn't there be systems that can not just provide "not bad" candidates, but actually find the best ones? For instance, what if the system was democratic -- just minus the campaigning? If no one was allowed to campaign for themselves, if no one could nominate/promote themselves as candidates -- if anyone who did so was automatically out of the running, what sort of impact would this one simple change make on the quality of our leaders?
In my opinion, a change such as this (ideally coupled with a few other changes) could revolutionalize and revitalize the US and let it become the amazing global power for good that it has the potential to be, but is currently failing miserably at. People would have to be judged not on how they described themselves, but on how their actions described them. On how the people around them felt about them. On the impact they had actually had in their communities, not their own false promises of change and prosperity. If campaigning wasn't allowed, then money wouldn't win elections -- good people would.
That's an interesting concept, definitely thinking outside the box. You'll probably get some negative comments from those in here that are a bit more politically savvy than I am, though. ;-)