What would work better than this current rotten political system? What about DICTATORSHIP?

[Lumpenproletariat]

What would be a better political structure than this crap we put up with now?

The Trump vs. Hillary circus might be the most extreme political election farce up 'til now, but this whole system was already pretty rotten even before the 2016 election.

And the rottenness goes beyond just the Presidency. What would be a better system than this soap opera?

IDEALISM should be acceptable for this topic, and the following is idealistic, in the sense that "It will never happen" or "You'll never get that passed" etc. However, it would work in the real world, I claim. It would work, even though it has no chance of ever happening. BUT, if it somehow could happen, it would work great.

So, how about . . .

A Council of 5 Dictators, chosen by lot.

This Council would be empowered to make ANY change to the current system and enact any law of its choosing and put in place any enforcement procedure needed.

But, it could do nothing except by a 5-0 UNANIMOUS VOTE of the Council.

And the entire existing system would remain in place, as is, unless this Council of 5 decides to make any change, in which case that one change would be imposed while leaving everything else in place as is. And there would be a delay, maybe one year, before anything enacted would take effect.

So in the U.S. the current Congress and President and Judicial system would remain in place, but the Council of 5 could make any change to these which it chooses, by unanimous vote.


The Lottery Procedure

The 5 "dictators" would be chosen from a pool of all registered voters of the country, and it might be a requirement that only those who had voted in the last several consecutive elections, without missing any election during that period, would be in the pool. This requirement would narrow down the lottery pool to mainly citizens who are interested in what's happening, and exclude those who are "apathetic" or ignorant about issues.

No two of the "dictators" could be from the same state. So the 5 would be randomly from 5 different states.


Sequestration of the Council

The 5 "dictators" would reside at a compound where they are monitored 24-7, with no privacy at all, no private meetings, no private contact even with their families. They would be on camera and on mike 24-7, though maybe they could have a private quarters where they could escape the camera, but absolutely no one else would be allowed with them in the private quarters.

There would also be 95 or 100 ALTERNATES, ready to serve on the Council when needed (if one of the 5 gets sick and cannot function for a time). These Alternates would serve many useful purposes, working at the compound and holding meetings and helping the 5 "dictators" do their decision-making. The Alternates also would be chosen by lot and have no private contact with anyone ever. All are implanted with mikes and cameras and monitored 24-7.

There would be no "vacations" or other absences from the compound. The members could resign when they wish, after which they could never serve again. As the number of Alternates dwindles to a certain level, a new lottery is held to add replacements.


How the Council would function

The Council of 5 would be required to perform its function every day with continued appeals to it from everyone in the nation who wants to address them and make demands. There has to be a way that ANY citizen can approach the Council to make requests or proposals for changes. So there would need to be rules about the Council's procedure that would be dictated to it, which it could not change, to force the 5 "dictators" to serve the whole country and not exclude any voices. The 100 (95) Alternates would be involved in the procedures to bring issues before the Council.

Obviously not every individual citizen could appear before the Council of 5. Most of the communication with the public would be electronic, by Internet, but even this would not make it possible for every person with a demand to address the Council directly. So indirect methods of presentation would be arranged for providing every citizen equal access to the Council.

There could be "lobbyists" or other interests involved, but nothing could be communicated privately. ALL their communication has to be monitored and recorded, with nothing private whatever.



I'll stop here for now to see if anyone else wants to contribute to this topic. There's obviously much more to be said about how this Council of 5 Dictators would function. And I haven't mentioned the advantages of it yet. Are they obvious?

But also, there might be other possible scenarios or grand schemes for creating a better political decision-making apparatus. If anyone has something to suggest.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A Council of 5 Dictators, chosen by lot.

So, whoever controls the system of 'lots' controls the country.
You think the people that are gerrymandering and voter-disenfranchising will sit back and let someone set up a completely free system of lots?

Who'd oversee the lot-selection? How to be sure the pot was actually stirred?

 

[untermensche]

What is needed is fair and open democracy, without the mechanisms which allow the very rich to corrupt the system.

A system where a person ran based only only on their ideas, not based on how much money they could raise.

A system where all candidates had equal access to the voters.

Bottom up democracy, not top down, which is really oligarchy.

And certainly what is not needed is any system based on dictatorship. The problem with the current system is that it is too much under the sway of the dictates of the rich minority.

That issue was settled long ago.

 

[Valjean]

How about proportional representation or instant run off voting?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

A Council of 5 Dictators, chosen by lot.

So, whoever controls the system of 'lots' controls the country.
You think the people that are gerrymandering and voter-disenfranchising will sit back and let someone set up a completely free system of lots? Who'd oversee the lot-selection? How to be sure the pot was actually stirred?

Why would the process be any less honest than the present elections and vote-counting?

Is the current system of elections riddled with cheating? Is it rigged to produce a different outcome than what the voters chose with the ballots? Maybe it's not perfect, but doesn't the candidate with the most real votes (from real voters casting real ballots) end up winning?

I think the current elections are not crooked or rigged in such a way as to produce a false outcome generally. And a nationwide lottery to choose these "dictators" would also not be rigged to produce a false outcome. I.e., it would not be possible for someone to rig it to produce a predetermined outcome. I.e., the winners of the lottery could not be chosen in advance by someone through any rigging process.

There would have to be millions of names in the lottery, and there'd be no way to predetermine the 100 or so names that would be drawn out.

Even if there is some cheating that goes on in our current elections, there's hardly any cases where it determines the outcome. And cheating or voter-fraud or -rigging or "dead people voting" etc. is not mainly what is wrong with our political process. Even if all that was totally cleaned up, the system would continue to be just as rotten.

It's not that we have a system where cheaters get into power instead of those who played the game fair. Rather, the system is a bad one, even if all the rules are followed and there's no cheating.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, whoever controls the system of 'lots' controls the country.
You think the people that are gerrymandering and voter-disenfranchising will sit back and let someone set up a completely free system of lots? Who'd oversee the lot-selection? How to be sure the pot was actually stirred?

Why would the process be any less honest than the present elections and vote-counting?

Because you're centralizing quite a bit of power in five hands. And offering no system of checks or balances on those five people.
Anyone wanting to be a player in this system has to be at the top, or there's no power to play with.
So, yeah, there will be a LOT more maneuvering to control the top five.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A small collection of "dictators" is a oligarchy. Essentially its a form of feudalism, an emperor and his dukes and earls. Not a good idea. Another problem is such things seems to lead
to dictatorship. After Lenin dies, the USSR was run by a troika until Stalin engineered their ouster. Or you can end up like Brazil with its corrupt and incompetent generals.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The "rulers" need to be sequestered so they can never have any private contact with anyone, to eliminate corruption.

What is needed is fair and open democracy, without the mechanisms which allow the very rich to corrupt the system.

Those in power will always be subject to bribery in one form or another, unless they are cut off from any private contact with anyone. The only way to prevent the system from being corrupted is to place the decision-makers into a place where they cannot have any private contact with anyone, so that all the communication is done publicly and there can be no private communication with them.

Otherwise there is no way to prevent them from dealing with someone who pays them off in return for favors.

So, why not require them to reside in a separate place, a compound of some kind, where they are monitored all the time, without private contact with anyone. They can still have plenty of contact, but all of it public, on camera and on mike. So they can never make deals wihout it being fully exposed to the public.

A system where a person ran based only on their ideas, not based on how much money they could raise.

As long as they have to compaign for votes, only the rich can win, or only candidates backed by the rich. Without the high volume of resources it's impossible to win votes.

It's even impossible to get one's name on the ballot, let alone win votes, unless one is rich or backed by the rich. For a person to be able to run without backing by the rich, we'd need a system where we don't vote for candidates listed on a ballot. Just getting one's name on that ballot requires the money -- rich only need apply.

So it would have to be a system without names on a ballot. Voters might have to write in the candidate's name, or type it in. Or have a long list on a computer, of 1000 names or so, and they scroll down to the name they're looking for.

But even in that system, only the rich could win, because only they could afford the costs of getting their names before the voters in the campaigning so the voters would know to scroll down the list to find that name. So it would be possible for the lower 90% to "run" for office -- but never to win.

A system where all candidates had equal access to the voters.

Only if any spending by candidates is prohibited. As long as there is any campaigning, giving speeches, holding rallies, doing phone calls or door-to-door, printing any literature, doing any ads, then there cannot be "equal access" to voters.

Possibly the candidates could be presented in a forum where it's impossible to identify the individual candidate other than by the presentation itself and nothing else. The candidate's name would have to be excluded, because the name recognition gives an unequal advantage to those who campaigned, which costs money and can be done only if one is backed by wealth. Even the candidate's voice would have to be excluded. The presentation at which the "voting" takes place would have to be one where the candidates address the voters with a mechanical voice only. Electronically disguised.

If the voting is limited to this kind of event only -- presentations by candidates speaking with an artificial voice, no candidate name but only a number for identification -- then maybe it's possible for all the candidates to have an equal chance to address the voters. Based only on what the candidate said in the presentation. But also, there can be no biographical information from the candidate, because this would help to identify the candidate and thus give an unfair advantage to the rich who could afford to do ads/promotions to gain public recognition.

Bottom up democracy, not top down, which is really oligarchy.

The only democracy there has ever been was the top-down kind. It's hard to imagine what form a bottom-up "democracy" would take.

A lottery would eliminate the domination by the rich. If the "rulers" are chosen by lot, then the average office-holder would be in the middle of the income scale, and there would be as many below the mid-point as above, and thus an equal representation among all income levels.

And certainly what is not needed is any system based on dictatorship.

Then just call it something else. Call it "We the People" or some other phrase with a nice ring to it.

The problem with the current system is that it is too much under the sway of the dictates of the rich minority.

A Council of "dictators" such as I proposed -- chosen by lot, where all the citizens are in the lottery and would have power to change anything if they could agree by a unanimous vote, and all are housed in a compound where they could have no private communication with anyone -- could not become dominated by the rich minority, or any other minority.

But any system of electing candidates who give speeches and campaign for votes is a system which inevitably is dominated by the rich.

That issue was settled long ago.

Yes, we have a system where the notorious "dictator" tyrant who murders his political enemies and imposes totalitarian control over everything is probably excluded by our system of elections, so that the bottom .2% or .3% worst types are excluded from ever coming to power.

However it's also a system which guarantees that we will always have the bottom 20% or so lowest in power over us. We are assured of having "leaders" who hover somewhere above the bottom .5% or 1% scum level but below the bottom 20% level or so. Within that range, with anyone lower or above that range excluded.

We should get beyond the complacency of being satisfied having these lowest 20% control us. (Maybe it's really 10% -- the exact number doesn't matter.)

 

[iolo]

The same problem obviously comes up all the time - somebody has to set up any system, and they will do it to their own advantage, like rich slave-owners setting up their own government to avoid paying taxes -what's the betting they will retain slavery?

Dictatorships, however set up, always work in favour of the dictators.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How does a penis in potato do a good job of running a country?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How about proportional representation or instant run off voting?

We have examples of p r, and the run-off system has been experimented with a little, I believe.

What's the track record for p r?

I don't think either corrects the basic problem, which is that any system of voting for your favorite candidate necessarily means that the most charismatic demagogues will run our society. Those who give the best speeches and do the best at manipulating the audience and telling the mob what it wants to hear are the ones who will assume power and make the decisions for us, and I see no reason why charisma and ability to manipulate people and lie to them is a good qualification for a decision-maker for society.

But still, maybe proportional representation is better -- I don't know if the "Parliaments" etc. have done a better job. It's debatable. And instant run-offs need to be experimented with further.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How are these dictators going to come to unanimous decisions anyways? Given that they wouldn't have any knowledge or experience regarding the issues they're voting on, they'll probably just end up listening to whichever lobbyist they find most convincing and you've reduced the number of politicians the special interests need to bribe down to a handful.

Also, you know that one of them is going to be some asshole from Boston who won't agree to let FEMA give so much as a bottle of water to hurricane victims unless everyone else agrees to have the federal government build a gold plated stadium for the Bruins.

 

[Valjean]

How about proportional representation or instant run off voting?

We have examples of p r, and the run-off system has been experimented with a little, I believe.

What's the track record for p r?

I don't think either corrects the basic problem, which is that any system of voting for your favorite candidate necessarily means that the most charismatic demagogues will run our society. Those who give the best speeches and do the best at manipulating the audience and telling the mob what it wants to hear are the ones who will assume power and make the decisions for us, and I see no reason why charisma and ability to manipulate people and lie to them is a good qualification for a decision-maker for society.

But still, maybe proportional representation is better -- I don't know if the "Parliaments" etc. have done a better job. It's debatable. And instant run-offs need to be experimented with further.

Instant run off or ranked voting enables one to vote for the candidate he really prefers without wasting his vote. It enables every vote to count. It eliminates "strategic voting" and being forced to pick the least onerous from a two man, winner take all race. It reduces the chance a minority tyranny, with a political minority able to push through self serving policies or pack a supreme court with toadies.

A proportionately represented parliament, likewise, would more closely represent the people's will and enable all to have a seat at the table.
If 20% of the voters are Socialist, 20% Green, 20% Left-liberal and 40% Conservative right, could a 100% conservative right winner really be considered democratic, would it really represent the will of the majority?

 

[tantric]

how about this: one house of congress is staffed by citizens chosen at random. said citizens serve two year terms, or, alternately, can spend that time in jail, rather like jury duty.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

how about this: one house of congress is staffed by citizens chosen at random. said citizens serve two year terms, or, alternately, can spend that time in jail, rather like jury duty.

I really don't get the fascination with government by uninformed people who don't want to be there. Why not just put a bunch of potential policies on a wall and have a blindfolded guy throw a dart at them to determine what to do?

 

[tantric]

how about this: one house of congress is staffed by citizens chosen at random. said citizens serve two year terms, or, alternately, can spend that time in jail, rather like jury duty.

I really don't get the fascination with government by uninformed people who don't want to be there. Why not just put a bunch of potential policies on a wall and have a blindfolded guy throw a dart at them to determine what to do?

because they are an actual representative sample of the nation. the other option seems to be the people being represented by rich lawyers. these people could never be 're-elected' and thus could actual stand up for their beliefs.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

because they are an actual representative sample of the nation. the other option seems to be the people being represented by rich lawyers. these people could never be 're-elected' and thus could actual stand up for their beliefs.

What beliefs? The vast majority of laws have nothing to do with beliefs and have to do with how to implement policies. That's the kind of thing which takes experience and dedication to learning about the issues. It's the same thing as with the discussion about congressional term limits turned up to 11. When you get uninformed and unmotivated people in positions of power, they are forced to rely more and more on the unelected bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists in regards of what to do, not because of any inherent corruption, but because they lack other avenues to come to a decision about what the specific details of those policies should be and can't distinguish between good and bad recommendations.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Extreme restrictions on the Council of 5 "dictators" chosen by lot

Why would the process be any less honest than the present elections and vote-counting?

Because you're centralizing quite a bit of power in five hands.

But they can do nothing unless they agree by unanimous vote. Should the number be increased to 6 or 7? Their power to act is restricted more and more as the number of them increases. The number could be higher than 5. If the number was put at 10 or 12 or 15, isn't it likely that they could never make any decision at all? We want them to have some power, don't we?

But increasing it to 6 or 7 might be OK.

And offering no system of checks or balances on those five people.

They are prevented from having any private contact with anyone. They are required to live at a compound where they are monitored 24-7 (except if they are allowed a private quarters where there can be no contact with anyone else). Isn't that quite a bit of "checks" on them?

The "balances" on them are the others who can vote differently, and only a unanimous vote of the Council can result in any action by them.

Anyone wanting to be a player in this system has to be at the top, or there's no power to play with. So, yeah, there will be a LOT more maneuvering to control the top five.

Whatever "maneuvering" happens will all be monitored by anyone who wants to observe (anyone on the planet who has Internet access).

Everything happening at this compound would be presented live on audio and video media. Probably 24-hour Internet streaming.

Does there need to be a system to control what outsiders can be present there? Or who can address this Council by electronic media?

Perhaps the rule should be that no one at all may contact the Council directly (physically present), except the 95 (100) alternates. Rather, only electronic contact would be allowed. So anyone addressing the Council would have to do so through a phone or e-mail or Internet voice connection, etc.

The connection to anyone trying to communicate to them could be restricted greatly. It can be made extremely difficult to "control" them from the outside. There's no limit how far they could be restricted to make outside "control" difficult.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

These "dictators" would be CHOSEN BY LOT, randomly, from among all the citizens.

Or from among all registered voters who voted consecutively in the last 5 (6) (7) elections.

A small collection of "dictators" is a oligarchy. Essentially its a form of feudalism, an emperor and his dukes and earls. Not a good idea.

I'll just repeat the idea again, which has no similarity to anything you're referring to. Except that you seem to be obsessed with the "dictator" word. Can't we get beyond the terminology/semantics?

This would be a Council of 5 "dictators" who are normal citizens chosen randomly by lot rather than by election campaigning.

They would reside at a compound where they would have to remain until they resign from the Council. They would be monitored 24/7 on camera and mic, with no PRIVATE contact with anyone. Any contact they make with other persons would be public only, on camera and mic.

There would be 95 (100) alternates, others also chosen by lot, who would be at the same place and be ready to serve on the Council of 5 when needed as substitutes or when any of the 5 resign.

The Council of 5 could make decisions only by UNANIMOUS VOTE of the 5.

And this Council would do nothing to change anything in the present governing system until they can agree unanimously. So they would not replace any existing system at first. But they could make changes in the policies or in the existing structure if and when they can agree unanimously to make that change.

Why wouldn't this lead to a better system? It might take years for anything substantial to change, but wouldn't this gradually lead to something better?

(That it could never happen, because the establishment would never allow it, etc., is not the point. I'm just saying it would work and fix much that's wrong if somehow it could happen.)

Another problem is such things seems to lead to dictatorship.

But there have never been any "such things" as this. There has never been any political system or nation or state or community where such a Council, chosen by lot from all the citizenry, has been put in charge of the community and put under restrictions such as this Council of 5 "dictators" would be, as I've described here.

And further restrictions could be added to make it even more difficult for it to lead to something dangerous.

After Lenin dies, the USSR was run by a troika until Stalin engineered their ouster.

That's nothing to do with this. When anyone on this Council of 5 resigns or dies, they would be replaced by the next in line of the alternates. The Council would have no power to change this. A few basic rules would be imposed which could not be changed by the Council:

• Any decision has to be by unanimous vote to be binding.
  
• They are succeeded by the alternates, also chosen by lot. The Council has no power to replace a member who drops out or take over in place of that one. A new member is added to the Council from among the alternates, who comes up automatically without any selection by the 4 members.
  
• They are monitored 24/7 without ever being allowed to hold any private contact with ANYONE, no matter who, not even their own family.

And a few other basic rules. The number of rules has to be kept short and simple. But there could be a few more to greatly restrict the power of these 5 "dictators" to do anything arbitrary or dangerous.

Or you can end up like Brazil with its corrupt and incompetent generals.

That has nothing to do with this. Those generals were not chosen randomly by lot from among the millions of citizens.

I want to continue using the word "dictators" for this, but you have to break loose from the semantics of obsessing on this one word. There's a good reason to use this word, but these 5 "dictators" would not be anything like the examples you've mentioned. No "generals" or "troika" or any such thing.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Restrictions on the Council of 5 would prevent it from doing anything to favor itself or the members.

The same problem obviously comes up all the time - somebody has to set up any system, and they will do it to their own advantage, like rich slave-owners setting up their own government to avoid paying taxes -what's the betting they will retain slavery?

Dictatorships, however set up, always work in favour of the dictators.

Again, we shouldn't get hung up on the "dictator" word. The current U.S. President, or any head of state, has more power and less restriction on him/her than these 5 "dictators" would be subject to.

However, to prevent the danger that they would "work in favour of the dictators," conditions imposed on this Council of 5 could make it impossible for them to ever do anything to grant power to themselves personally.

There have to be some rules imposed which they cannot change. The unanimous vote rule, e.g. These rules have to be simple, and the list of these rules cannot be too long.

Probably one rule would be that they cannot enact any measure which makes any reference to themselves personally, or to the Council. So they cannot change their status or status of the Council.

Everything the Council decides would have to be stated in a written document, and nothing but this document has any official status. In any document it issues there could be nothing said about the members of the Council or about the Council, such as any authority it has to do anything.

Everything about this Council has to be contained in a PRIOR document -- charter, mandate -- which defines the Council and its function. And this would prohibit the Council from issuing any statement about itself or the members.