[PrimeMcFly]

If people can't be trusted to vote responsibly (i.e. not voting in someone openly talking about being a dictator, openly racist, openly bigoted), then I'm fine with bypassing the vote.

It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say.

[swores]

> "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." - Winston Churchill

(Since it's the second quote of his I've used in this thread, I'd like to actively clarify that despite being British I am a long way from being a fan of Churchill, but he does have some good quotes attributed to him!)

So when you say "It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say." - do you have a better system in mind, that works better than existing forms of democracy?

[PrimeMcFly]

Actually, yes! Thank you for asking.

First I should point out how utterly ridiculous it is that with all the data we have access too, all our analytical capability and ability to model and simulation, there are not many people working on alternate systems, and anything people come up with is not taken seriously. People would rather poke holes in anything new, even if it has less problems than our current system.

I do have a rough idea for a system, it's based on a lot of research, but only exists as a lot of rough notes - I haven't taken the time yet to properly organize and write everything out, it's a big project.

Basically though, it tries to solve some of the problems of representative democracy like we have in the US. Some example differences (which I'm not sure if I can devote time to defending in this thread, I just list them as examples) by:

- Removing elections for many positions, having them appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool - possibly even assigning them the duty of serving in such a position, not unlike jury duty.

- Giving people in positions of power more power to act unilaterally, while still having their actions subject to review, a cross between SCOTUS and a jury of qualified individuals randomly selected.

- Ensuring leaders must act based on current science and knowledge, not personal feeling or intuition - these are not things the general population should be voting on, even indirectly.

- Many more referendums for big issues, rather than just having elected representatives make the decision, or worse, fail to make the decision.

Basically, many more elements of a meritocracy, much less influence and say from the population, while still ensuring they have a voice. It would be a much less democratic representative democracy in the best way possible, although I suppose it could still fall under that same umbrella.

[peteradio]

Go find a monarchy to live in then. These ideas are in direct opposition to what the ancestors of our nation were fleeing:

- must act based on current science and knowledge (religious oppression)

- positions of power more power to act unilaterally (monarchy)

- appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool (nobility)

[PrimeMcFly]

Nope, nothing I suggest is close to a monarchy; I'm very against such an anachronistic institution. You've gone out of your way to make a ton of ridiculous assumptions to build a worst case scenario here.

But, yes, religious oppression to a point is a good thing. At a minimum kids should not be allowed to be indoctrinated.

More power to act unilaterally does not equal complete power to act unilaterally i.e. a monarchy.

A qualified pool would be based on education, not heredity.

[peteradio]

What incorrect actions or non-actions would be corrected under this system? How do you prevent "for your own good" from becoming the bad thing.

[PrimeMcFly]

By having checks and balances in place.

[jki275]

We don't have a "representative democracy" in the US. We have a representative republic. There is a very wide gap between what you believe our system of government is and what it actually is.

[PrimeMcFly]

No, there is no gap. You're making a rather large assumption.

And the US is both a representative democracy (no need for scarequotes) and a representative republic.

I used 'representative democracy' (quotes actually make sense here) because the context was about how well democracy as a form of government works.

This[0] helpful wiki page may be of interest to you.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[jki275]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in what Wikipedia has to say about it.

The US is a republic. Calling it a democracy is done by people who want a different form of government where the majority rules and can remove the rights of the minority.

[PrimeMcFly]

So you're denying/rejecting an authoritative source because it doesn't match your own ideas and preconceptions.

Got it.