RE: Real democracy
March 4, 2022 at 12:47 am
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2022 at 12:48 am by vulcanlogician.)
It would be interesting to see what results your proposed experiment would yield. That would be the final word on whether something could work or not.
But how is this different from representative democracy?
This sounds like an idea I had years ago as a kind of intermediary between Platonic guardians and representative democracy. The idea was roughly, alongside our congress, we'd have something called "The House of Guardians." This legislative body would consist of educated experts on the things they were voting on. Climate scientists, for instance, would vote on bills that addressed Global Warming, etc. And any bill that passed from the committee of experts would still have to make it through the house and senate.
The biggest difference with the house of Guardians and regular congress would be that one must qualify to be on the ballot by demonstrating academic excellence in the given field that they are running for. The house of guardians would be chopped up into scientists, economists and the like.
Anyway, your idea reminded me of that system I formulated long ago. I still think it's an okay idea. Needs to be worked out though.
***
As for unbridled democracy, I have high hopes for it. But in California they've had mixed results trying this (even in moderate form). Turns out, some analysts hypothesize, the general public is prone to whim and doesn't consistently make responsible decisions.
This is a concern I had. It may end up being that the process for determining who has the requisite knowledge becomes some sham, manipulated by those who want to lock in their own nomination.
Quote:Now we also need to take decisions at a national level which require technical knowledge, such as economy. For this I propose two options: every community creates a group of certified experts who arrive to an agreement, and then a national decision is taken.
But how is this different from representative democracy?
Quote:Or every certified expert around the nation has the right to vote.
This sounds like an idea I had years ago as a kind of intermediary between Platonic guardians and representative democracy. The idea was roughly, alongside our congress, we'd have something called "The House of Guardians." This legislative body would consist of educated experts on the things they were voting on. Climate scientists, for instance, would vote on bills that addressed Global Warming, etc. And any bill that passed from the committee of experts would still have to make it through the house and senate.
The biggest difference with the house of Guardians and regular congress would be that one must qualify to be on the ballot by demonstrating academic excellence in the given field that they are running for. The house of guardians would be chopped up into scientists, economists and the like.
Anyway, your idea reminded me of that system I formulated long ago. I still think it's an okay idea. Needs to be worked out though.
***
As for unbridled democracy, I have high hopes for it. But in California they've had mixed results trying this (even in moderate form). Turns out, some analysts hypothesize, the general public is prone to whim and doesn't consistently make responsible decisions.
(March 4, 2022 at 12:38 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: And how do we determine who actually has the required knowledge to actually vote?
This is a concern I had. It may end up being that the process for determining who has the requisite knowledge becomes some sham, manipulated by those who want to lock in their own nomination.
