One of my teachers used to say democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones.
I had a boring day at work today and came up with a new idea for a workable government that is better than democracy and doesn't have the problems of fascism or monarchy.
>Problems my form of government solves 1/2
The problem with democracy as well all know is that it becomes a popularity contest that leads to some terrible leaders like the Clintons or Obama or the Bushes. Further politicians often make bad decisions just to gain more popularity even if it isn't what's best for the country.
Meanwhile fascist and monarchic rulers also pose a problem in that they aren't responsive to the people. In unelected governments there is no feedback mechanism and people have no way of getting rid of bad or oppressive leaders.
Solution: Create a system where people don't choose the leaders but can get rid of them.
>How my technocratic government solves these problems to be the ideal form of government
Here's the system.
We have people who are leaders in the fields of military, business, law, engineering and science, and are native born citizens eligible to become leaders through a merit based system that measures their contribution to their field.
From this pool a group of people are selected randomly to be congresspeople. Senators are chosen randomly from congresspeople who served 3 years or more and the president is chosen randomly from a group of Senators who served 3 or more years. . . . continued
The people have no say in who their leaders are. However, they do have a say in getting rid of their leaders.
Every district has a ballot box always open and any person can, at any time, go in and cast a vote against their representative senator, congressperson or president. When more than 50 % of the constituents vote against a given politician, that politician loses their seat and another politician is chosen at random to replace them from the available pool.
In this system, we have people with experience and ability representing the people. However, they will not be slaves to popularity contests like democratic leaders because no one is competing for votes to gain seats. They will however be careful not to mistreat or oppress the people or become corrupt, because if they do, there is a system by which the people can get rid of them.
Thus we have the perfect orderly technocratic society, without the follies of democracy but without the oppressive nature of dictatorships.
What do you think? Are you all now in favor of the technocracy?
Ian Reyes
how do you prevent people from rigging the meritocracy by preventing anyone they don't like from getting jobs, and how do you prevent people from using the media to selectively kick out good leaders?
Adam Clark
I dont want some autist nerd leading me wiith his autis plan that will make all better in 20+ years I want to live now thats why low taxes I dont want my pay going to social programs, NASA shit or the military
Do explain how people get into power in your system, Canadian.
Jace Cooper
>how do you prevent people from rigging the meritocracy by preventing anyone they don't like from getting jobs
that would be impossible to prevent completely, which is why to hedge against that we have the top people from various fields, - so even if one group controlled one field (eg. the left academia) it would be very unlikely for a group to control all military, science and business
The media might manipulate the people to get rid of leaders that the corporations don't like . . . the media does that now by controlling who we vote for. This system, to get rid of a leader, you have to go to a ballot box and vote against him. Today, the voter rate is about 50% so to get 50% of the people to get up off their ass and uniformly stand against one person - even if it's over a period of time, would mean they are doing a shitty enough job that people are actually feeling it. You can manipulate people with the media, but it's hard to use media to get people to take an affirmative action .
Andrew Sanders
Had the same "if more than 50% people say no" system for kicking off the leader for a more dictatorship style state but have to think about it a bit more.
For your idea i guess the selection system could be jewed especially in all ideological tests and when the kids are being edjucated
James Anderson
also, how do you avoid the classic military officer problem?
to explain, a lot of modern militaries have a strictly laid out promotion schedule for all of their officers, where officers might be promoted every few years provided they meet some requirements. this doesn't sound that bad, until you remember that there only need to be a few generals, most officers probably don't want to be at the top, and the requirements tend to diverge from anything logical until you're doing paperwork and writing meaningless essays to get promoted.
the result? the types of officers who want to do one job and do it well tend to get filtered out over time, and the ones willing to suck up and do tons of paperwork become the generals.
Joseph Barnes
I thought I already did, you take a pool of the top achievers in business, science, military, engineering, law, etc. and select randomly from that group - it can be through a computer program set on random or even through a draw like a lottery
Ryder Rodriguez
Technocracy is the best system out there, but it is integrated within the political system already.
Hunter Miller
Ever hear of the Halo Effect?
Levi Watson
Yes but those people achieved their position in those fields by contribution to others. So by gaining their support/vote. Anyway how can a neuroscientist make decisions about economy? Doesn't add up
Jacob Parker
Yes there is a problem that maybe the top ranking people are not necessarily the ones who do the most, so we can't necessarily look soely at the rank but also achievements. Instead of just general, general who led x army during y war or something.
I admit the selection process would be challenging as
also points out,
but there has to be a way to taking concrete achievements in these given fields and ranking them to see who made the most achievements and the most significant achievements
Lucas Walker
well that problem also exists for politicians today, the solution is politicians have people to advise them about the intricacies of the particular things they are legislating on and are more focused on how to best represent their riding
Christopher Peterson
>more focused on how to best represent their riding You're naive if you think that's what politicians do.
Hudson Rogers
well that's not what they do today, because they're more focused on getting votes and helping their party, but that's what they should ideally do and what they would do if we got rid of voting as a means of choosing our leaders but kept it as a means of getting rid of bad leaders
Anthony Ortiz
See, there's a reason why techies simply don't get anything that involves human interaction and therefore know jackshit about politics.
John Rivera
How about me and the mob I lead end up murdering your head of state when I don't like them?
Nice try leaf, come back when you've completed your first year of graduate history studies.
David Reed
why is knowing human interaction a benefical skill for a leader. It seems to me that being to gregarious or social would make someone a bad leader who doesn't focus on the intricasies of the nations problems and are too invovled with others. . . which incidentally is a problem in our current system that rewards and seeks out people who are gregarious and good at human interaction
also check those digits
checked
also mudering the aristocracy didn't work out all too well for the French if I recall, the revolution was a bloodbath and the ordinary french suffered like mad. Also leaders today are hard to kill, they have secret service and stuff
This, also, the military has a huge problem with the fact that determining who is best in thier field is highly subjective and often a task performed by people whom themselves have little involvment in the field.
Example >Two Lance Corporals in the infantry up for promotion to corporal, only 1 slot for squad leader can be assigned >E3 #1: 3 years in service, has graduated with honors from multiple schools of instruction, has completed multiple extra curricular courses of instruction, and carrys certs and ratings from many areas relevant to his field >E3 #2 has 3 years in service but literally none of that, hes just been on 2 deployments
An officer who has himself never been an infantryman must determine who to promote, so obviously he picks the guy with all the on paper training and schoolhouses and certs and stuff.
Problem is, the guy who is great on paper hasnt ever actually done his job. He was in a security forces unit and on paper training is literally all he has done. E3 #2 has been on 2 combat deployments and has infiniteley more expierience and qualification actually working in his field, but none of it has made it to paper.
So you end up with a lot highly insecure paper warriors in charge of guys who are actually more qualified than them because in the infantry most of the things that actually make you a good infantryman arent things that generate a paper certificate.
Ideally the officer making the decision would go ask around about both options to get a good feel of who is actually better, but he's in charge of about a thousand different things and is 9 times out of 10 going to pick the less qualified but higher reccomended individual.
Point being that evaluating who is best is easily manipulated and the best people are usually going to be supplanted by people who are more qualified to work the beruecracy than actually perform thier job.
Brayden Hughes
Being a leader on a global level is possible only if you are a deeply deluded individual. Period. It's too late however.
Jacob Gutierrez
well this system isn't a way of choosing the best possible person, it's a way of choosing good people and getting rid of them if it turns out they are not good. Yes some people who aren't ideal will always slip through in any merit based system because of things like the halo effect, but that would be the exception not the norm in a functional society. We have a method of getting rid of people who are not so good
Joshua Johnson
Wanted to say it's a ruthless communism in disguise, but your ideas are interesting. I believe there were cases in history, where officials were chosen at random.
Zachary Martinez
This isnt a new idea. Poland already did this in a capacity back in the 1600's and 1700's. They ended up just shitcanning thier leadership every time somebody made a contraversial decision. Thier government ended up hamstrung because nobody wanted to rock the boat since upsetting the status quo got one ban hammered. Only weak leaders with vague inoffensive opinions ended up in power. Nothing ever got done because competency threatned the powerbase and the nation rapidly declined from its short lived position as most powerful nation in europe to a partitioned client state within 100 years.
The problem with meritocratic selection process is that people do not tend to select anyone who is more competent than themselves to be over them since doing so threatens thier own position. Likewise, anyone performing better than themselves are depicted as contraversial and dangerous rabble rousers and voted out.
In an ironic twist the system you propose actually turns into "tall poppy syndrome" and punishes excellence instead of rewarding it. Leaders end up being selected based on how non-contraversial they are and this creates a very weak indecisive government.
John Stewart
too bad Tech/STEM are trained with cucked values instead of nationalism and state craft, this is a pipe dream save for the few people like szabo who are both based and tech geniuses
Liam Watson
Bong, you can murder any leader under any regime, so, not an argument.
And this is correct criticism.
Thomas Martin
You teacher was a fucking jackass who needs to go back to civics class.
Luis Edwards
>why is knowing human interaction a benefical skill for a leader hahaha what the fuck are you doing asking something this retarded
Dominic Campbell
I often ask questions people think are retarded because I find that recieved and conventional whisdom is often wrong.
Why is good human interaction necessary for leadership? Why can't introverts be good presidents or congresspeople? Ron Paul seemed like an introvert and I think he would was an excellent leader. Bill Clinton and Obama understood human interaction, but were terrible leaders
