Is it better that the people vote to elect the person who will lead their country or is it better to have a hereditary system? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
30Opinion
constitutional monarchy >>>>>>>>
It's better to have directly democracy via computer network.
So no democracy at all.
en.wikipedia.org/.../E-democracy
In my country there’s a party that tried to do so. It didn’t ended well… this system is applicable only in very digitalised and modern countries, or you’ll exclude those who don’t have access to internet or don’t have the capabilities to use it.
Obviously to work it would require ubiquitous access.
Even a hybrid system where elected officials frame the questions on which the people vote would be better than the bullshit puppets shows that masquerade as democracy today.
Sure calling people directly to decide on nation issues could be a good way to involve them more than the actual systems, so with referendums via internet.
On the other hand, I have only two doubts:
1) how can normal people decide on complicate issues with global consequences, like “how has the country X to believe in the global chessboard play, id example with China?”. I bet every one of us has an answer itself but who can manage to foresee and handle consequences?
2) what’s the usage of a political class, if the decisions are all taken by the people? Politicians are reduced only to mere executors.
Mine is not a critic to the system, it’s only things I saw during the period the political party I said before experimented “direct democracy” here with its platforms
1) Educate people properly, and set the bar for voting to require at least average intelligence and a term of civil or military service.
2) The political class as it it currently exists should be abolished, as they are on the whole, power hungry and place self interest above all else and are essentially the tools of the oligarchs who fund them, and their assorted lobbyists. The degree of corruption is appalling, and extends to the point where the good of the people is rarely considered as a first or even second priority.
1) For what concerne people education you find me completely in agreement with you. Also with current system I think there should be a minimum level to access to voting system, but… who will decide the CORRECT education path for people? Who will establish rules? I mean, there should be avant-Garde politicians that will “sacrifice” their political career in order to assure people a better education and a proper formation… does this special politicians exist? And… will be this level of education sufficient to people to correctly decide about things that may alter the global assets of the country? I don’t know…
2) you talk of corruption, I agree totally with that vision. Actual political class is a disaster. I speak for my personal experience in my country… we had that political party that proposed direct democracy saying these exact things you’re saying. They wanted to “open the parliament like a can of tuna” and their elected members of parliament were common people with 2 characteristics: everyone should be honest and no one should be involved previously with politics. They showed a fresh new face and their purposes were to fight corruption, go against monopoles and oligarch powers, give dignity to people and go against politics against environment.
Results? The party members showed an ENORMOUS incompetence, especially during official encounters with foreign powers… and they had to change EVERY single point of their plan, since they promised everything without thinking at the achievability of the points, thinking that “being honest” should be a sufficient requirement to do so. They only revealed to be a more populist version of the actual parties… and the direct democracy has been a failure since there was so few people voting that way and on so complicate matters that was really embarrassing… can you imagine an housewife voting for a question like “should we abrogate the article 5 comma 3 of law 25/1956 for career of public magistrates?”
Well realistically it would take a noble tyrant to sweep the board clean and build the new system. A philosopher king, who would willingly relinquish his power after finishing the great work.
What it means to be a citizen would have to change to reflect the classical meaning.
People of higher intellect, and or longer civil or military service should have more voting power.
Oligarchs should have to make their arguments openly to the people, who will judge them accordingly.
Education would have to be universal, and reward merit first.
Political parties and partisan behavior should be banned.
Great effort should be made to balance local and national need and power modeled in the same general way so that there are no neglected fringe regions where revolts might be driven by neglect or exploitation.
The soft path can also work, but without a philosopher king change would be slow, hard won and iterative, as well as prone to setback.
@Ευδεμονια if there is a system which can eliminate the political class where do I sign up?
@artemissilver requiring anything of people like giving something back to their country to get its privileges is racist…or something. Well done, I agree people should have to contribute to the country directly to get anything from it. It forces the people to be more careful with the decisions they make about the future of the nation. When someone has to pay for something or stand in the military ranks during wars they vote for it suddenly makes them less keen to vote for it. Without any kind of military or civil service experience and without paying taxes people should not be allowed to vote. It’s not fair to those who have something to lose if the decisions about it are made by those who won’t suffer the consequences.
@ArtemisSilver Your discourse reminds me the Republic of Plato. But both your design and his has a little defect: who can elect a benevolent dictator/ a leviathan/ a king philosopher? Who can assure he will do everything right? Are you the one who must be elected? What if What’s good for you isn’t good for me?
@Sixgunsound there’s no possibility for a system without a political class, except for a system with very few people. Like Ancient Greek cities, they had a form of direct democracy with all (almost, the majority) of citizens involved in decisions. But the key must be the FEW people you should involve.. you can’t involve more people than those living in a small town (10k? 20k?) or the decisional process would be too slow, having to listen to everyone opinions.
You don't elect such a king, they simply happen, and are essentially miraculous. So we're left with the slow iterative option.
@ArtemisSilver you make me think about an enlightened ruler, like those in XVIII century gave in Europe a big role to Science and Philosophy and gave the basis for Illuminist reforms. But I think it will be very difficult to have such thing, I appreciate your optimism but I don’t think such a good enlightened reformist will fall from the sky.
They'd be most likely to appear as a unifying warlord or emperor after a major dark age such as the one looming now. We could also potentially create one in the form of an AI demigod, but that's extremely dangerous.
@ArtemisSilver sure an AI demigod is really dangerous, seems coming from a dystopian world.
In general it’s a bit obscure vision of the future, since every imperial form or warlord will come over after a war or a catastrophe… sincerely I don’t hope humanity has to face such events in order to change.
I hope so too, but the world is moving quickly that direction already.
@ArtemisSilver let’s see what will happen. I agree with you and the signals are very alarming.
None the less it's always good to meet someone else who's awake.
Harlan Ellison wrote a story titled I have no voice, and I must scream about an AI dictatorship. Creepy, scary, and plausible.
*I have no mouth*
Of the two, I'd say voting. Honestly, just randomly assigning positions by lottery is likely to work better than a hereditary system.
Election.
Didn't they teach history where you went to school?
And didn’t they taught you all the times that democracy failed. Monarchy is still the way to go.
@juanchi1008 Yeah - right - and you really believe that? Get an education, you obviously need it.
You should also read some books. Look at how European monarchies dominated the world. And look at how democracies all around the globe fail.
@juanchi1008 Again, you really need an education.
I got my shingle - a couple of them, actually. You should really get yours.
With perhaps a little tweaking, America's electoral college system is a pretty good idea.
If its Trump’s family I say hereditary all the way
Nah, Barron is the only Trump I want.
Generally voting is better.
its fake like all the other stuff
Fuk Trump