• SgtThunderC_nt@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Term limits for everything. If the morons are going to pick an idiot to run their village at least there’s a chance they’ll elect a smart man, if only by mistake.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not even term limits, I’d say politics should be like jury duty. Everyone has to do it, they get paid time off work for it, they don’t get to make a career out of it.

      But there should also be some meritocracy. The EU actually manages that quite well - the European Commission is made up of “unelected bureaucrats”, but actually what that means is they’re made up of talented lawyers chosen by each member state. These lawyers write laws. Then, the democratically elected Members of European Parliament vote on the laws.

      The clever people who know how to write laws write the laws, then the people democratically vote on the laws. That’s a pretty good principle.

      The only difference I would add is that people should have a more direct say on their vote. If I want to vote on a particular law, I should be able to vote on that law. If I don’t care I should be able to pool my vote with some group that I align with, who can then vote on my behalf.

      If I don’t like how the group votes, I can leave and vote for another next time.

      None of this, “vote for a guy, then hope they do what I expect of them for the next 4 years” bollocks.

      Furthermore, after the first vote, there should be an opportunity for more votes. So if the group I align with votes against my interest, I have a chance to object later on, be it before the realisation of the policy or upon review after the policy has been running for some time.

      Sure, there are faults with this. People can be manipulated. However, you can’t manipulate people constantly, forever, and eventually good policy should win through.

      • SgtThunderC_nt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, so how do we get everyone to actually bother to vote? In the US we’ve been having problems trying to get equal representation at the polls and so far haven’t really done a great job of fixing it.

        Having a team of lawyers to draft and submit legal terms is a great idea, in fact it’s kind of the point of lawyers. The issue is having the people who vote on them be able to both understand them, and to check both the writer and the representative check each other for corruption. If you give the representative the ability to remove the lawyer then the representative holds the real power, if you don’t, you give the lawyer more power. We need a balance in there somewhere.

        Let’s also not forget that direct democracy has lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the election of theocratic and fascistic leaders. How do we balance that?

        Capping terms at 1 or 2 prevents people from being able to consolidate and exploit their power. But we’ll still need leaders to vote on our behalf so how do we prevent corruption? What if we had a new institution whose sole job was to check the government and maintain an open forum where all opinions can be shared and argued.

        More than any of this, I really think the rich just need to be scared of the poor again.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You wouldn’t need everyone to vote on everything. However there is a natural incentive to vote on things that interest and affect you. Right now, people don’t vote because they don’t believe it will change anything - you vote for a person, but they’re no different to any other person. Meanwhile, if they were given the opportunity to vote on whether their tax money should go to fixing their roads or building a new school, more people will have an opinion on that and want to vote.

          For things they don’t care about, they could either not vote, or better they could join a representative group. Rather than voting for a person to represent you for a set period, you join or leave a representative as you see fit. If you want to vote on a particular issue, or if the representative doesn’t vote the way you like, you withdraw your representative membership. Representatives would have to continue to act in the interests of their members, else they would lose their status.

          I disagree that democracy led to Roe vs Wade being reversed. Trump was elected despite not having the most votes - which isn’t democratic - and then he appointed people to the court - not democratic - to rig the votes in their rulings. Even the opportunity to appoint new judges isn’t democratic, as they are appointed for life, so the timing of when one elects to retire or dies determines who gets to decide their replacement. This prevents the system from being democratic or fair - it is a political decision made by politicians, rather than a meritocratic decision made by experts of the profession. The legal profession should be picking judges, not politicians.

          • SgtThunderC_nt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree that people would somehow be more compelled to vote for issues they care about. Most people care about who the president is but that still doesn’t get everyone to the polls. Forcing states to have more reasonable access to mail in ballots would be a step in the right direction but the problem in my opinion is really a out getting people to see it more as a duty than a chore. Say we used a tax credit to incentivize voting?

            As for the idea of just letting political parties do what they want, they kind of already do, see DNC primaries 2016. That system already exists and is being actively exploited by the ruling class. I don’t think that’s a fix.

            Again, we come back to term limits, people who are elected to office need to be forced out of politics after a set amount of time to prevent career politicians. And more specifically we need to make it so they cannot accept a job offer or payment for services from anyone who could have benefited from their decisions while in office. Maybe we have a pension for ex-representatives to live on for 8 years after leaving office, and make it illegal for them to have any other income? It should be a service to our country, not our country serving them.