…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

You can’t.

Eventually, or even sooner, it will come down to only privilege and birth deciding who gets to vote and who doesn’t. The hard work of the founding generation inevitably becomes the birth-right of the succeeding generations who have not necessarily any better intellect or ethics than the plebs.

Ban social media and free content publishing is one alternative option. But then we end up like China.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

You can’t.

Eventually, or even sooner, it will come down to only privilege and birth deciding who gets to vote and who doesn’t. The hard work of the founding generation inevitably becomes the birth-right of the succeeding generations who have not necessarily any better intellect or ethics than the plebs.

Ban social media and free content publishing is one alternative option. But then we end up like China.

Ban political donations and set campaign funding limits. Be pickier and more thorough pursuing the electoral act. Eg..those electoral campaign posters that looked official and said vote for the Libs in Chinese.Someone should have gone away for that.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

You can’t.

Eventually, or even sooner, it will come down to only privilege and birth deciding who gets to vote and who doesn’t. The hard work of the founding generation inevitably becomes the birth-right of the succeeding generations who have not necessarily any better intellect or ethics than the plebs.

Ban social media and free content publishing is one alternative option. But then we end up like China.

Ban political donations and set campaign funding limits. Be pickier and more thorough pursuing the electoral act. Eg..those electoral campaign posters that looked official and said vote for the Libs in Chinese.Someone should have gone away for that.

Yes. Give the parties a quota system of public funding from the general revenue. Ban all donations except from individuals. No corporations, no unions, no lobby groups etc.

But how to get politicians to ever pass this into law against the wishes of their major funders?

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

If that were the case then the most intellectual and ethically discriminatory people would all vote, but for various reasons they don’t and couldn’t be bothered is high on the list.

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

Compulsory course required to enter politics, the course would cover all political subjects and have a competent pass.

Subjects like ethics, human rights, logic, diplomacy, making good laws, industry, health, economics, education, how racism and sexism corrupts decision making.

Not a heavy course but introductory with pointers to further studies.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

You can’t.

Eventually, or even sooner, it will come down to only privilege and birth deciding who gets to vote and who doesn’t. The hard work of the founding generation inevitably becomes the birth-right of the succeeding generations who have not necessarily any better intellect or ethics than the plebs.

Ban social media and free content publishing is one alternative option. But then we end up like China.

Ban political donations and set campaign funding limits. Be pickier and more thorough pursuing the electoral act. Eg..those electoral campaign posters that looked official and said vote for the Libs in Chinese.Someone should have gone away for that.

Yes. Give the parties a quota system of public funding from the general revenue. Ban all donations except from individuals. No corporations, no unions, no lobby groups etc.

But how to get politicians to ever pass this into law against the wishes of their major funders?

Treating unions the same as corporations would make things worse not better.

Unions support the rights of people who would otherwise be powerless.

Corporations support the rights of their owners, or rather the rights of their large shareholders, who are anything but powerless.

As for lobby groups, it depends who they are lobbying on behalf of.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

Compulsory course required to enter politics, the course would cover all political subjects and have a competent pass.

Subjects like ethics, human rights, logic, diplomacy, making good laws, industry, health, economics, education, how racism and sexism corrupts decision making.

Not a heavy course but introductory with pointers to further studies.

A thought came to me while reading Manning Clarke last month.

Suffrage, does it matter?

I ask because of a comment by Manning Clarke. The vote for women had no effect on the balance of power the federal Parliament or in any of the States of Australia.

Science Fiction had addressed to topic. Perhaps the least popular person should rule. Perhaps only one person who typifies the population should be selected by computer to vote.

> Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

Hmm, the way when democracy was invented back in ancient Athens holds some appeal to me. Collect together people who are powerful in their own right, such as top civil servants, directors of large companies, powerful union officials, university deans, military generals, and select a leader from them by unbiased lottery.

Dang, I came up with a beautiful system of government just a year or so ago. Now what was it? Found it.

Suppose we have no leader but a governing council with these seven positions:

• The vision
• The voice
• The executive
• The villain
• The people
• The budget
• The pedant

The vision

• Sets national and international and environmental policy. Looks far ahead. Has access to the complete bank of knowledge.
  The voice
• Government spokesman. Diplomat. Hears suggestions and complaints.
  The executive
• Gets things done. Organises anything, anytime, anywhere. Manufacturing, transport, building, jobs. Army. Emergency services.
  The villain
• Searches out and eliminates crime and corruption.
  The people
• Education. Health. Social welfare. Resolves disputes. Personal freedoms.
  The budget
• Responsible for all government accounts.
  The pedant
• Ensures that the letter of the law exactly matches its intent. Replaces the current senate.

mollwollfumble said:

Perhaps only one person who typifies the population should be selected by computer to vote.

Damn, I was stuck trying to remember who wrote that story.

Franchise by Asimov.

The point is that any appointed system of government is subject to manipulation by the first leader who decides that the country would be a much better place if he/she should be in charge for life.

The advantage of democracy is not that it guarantees the best possible governance, it is that it is the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

That doesn’t mean there are no active vested interests of course, but it does mean that if their actions become too obvious and extreme eventually they will be kicked out.

Heather Cox Richardson
16 hrs ·
February 9, 2020 (Sunday)

I get a lot of messages these days from people who say they are frightened, that they feel helpless in the face of Trump’s rising authoritarianism. The hatred on social media makes them want to hide from the world, and they cannot see a way out of the current mess America is in. They feel hopeless.

It is worth remembering that one of the goals of disinformation, especially the disinformation seeded by Russian intelligence, is to discourage voters and convince them to give up so an autocrat can take over.

People ask me what they can do. You can call your senators and representatives, give money to a candidate, knock on doors, insist on hand-marked paper ballots, and work to get out the vote.

But here’s a larger perspective.

After 35 years of studying politics, I have come to believe that what changes society is ideas, and that politics, especially, changes according to popular beliefs. We have the current leaders we do because they were able to convince voters to cast ballots for them, based on the narrative they offered.

We got to this point, where we have a party in power that is deliberately creating a false narrative, because, after World War II, so many Americans believed in the new, activist New Deal state, the “liberal consensus,” that politicians could not motivate voters with sweeping stories of what it meant to be an American: almost all Americans agreed on those basic principles. So political scientists concluded that there was no longer any real defining ideological difference between Republicans and Democrats. In a famous book published in 1960, The American Voter, political scientist Philip Converse said that Americans were not particularly ideological, but rather voted based on their understanding of what benefits a party could offer to their particular group.

On the heels of this study, both Republicans and Democrats turned away from the idea of attracting voters with arguments about principle. Instead, they focused on nailing together coalitions, in a kind of transactional politics that erased the larger meaning of what it meant to participate in constructing a government.

In 1969, after Republican President Richard M. Nixon had successfully pulled together a coalition to win the White House despite the fact more Americans had voted for other candidates than had voted for him, political operative Kevin Philips applied Converse’s idea to the fortunes of the Republican Party. In The Emerging Republican Majority, Philips argued that Republicans could win for the foreseeable future if only they kept following Converse’s advice. The Democrats followed suit, and both traditional parties began to concentrate on messaging and the mechanics of getting people out to vote.

But the men who hated the liberal consensus and wanted to destroy it, men known as Movement Conservatives, did not follow Converse’s plan. They did not try to hammer together coalitions, because their plan to destroy the New Deal state was not popular with virtually anyone but their core supporters. So instead of following the new political science, they were the only group that offered to voters a clear narrative. And their narrative tied into western and American mythology. They talked of an individual American man, usually uneducated, but close to the land and to God, who fought back against an empire trying to destroy his way of life. It was a powerful image that tied into everything from the Biblical story of David and Goliath to the modern story of Luke Skywalker and the Empire. Star Wars: A New Hope came out in 1977, and three years later, the Movement Conservative spokesman Ronald Reagan won the White House.

Voters want to know that their votes matter. And since Reagan, Movement Conservatives have assured voters that they are playing a part in a war of good and evil, in which their votes are preserving America from what Movement Conservatives call socialism, or communism. That narrative has decimated traditional Republicans at the national level, and kept the Democrats on the ropes.

But we are in a new political moment, in which people’s ballots matter for the survival of American democracy. Now is the time to reject the idea of politics as transactional and instead talk about principles, and what matters to us as Americans. The Trump campaign is aware that he is unlikely to win a majority of voters, so his operatives are hoping to eke out a win by depressing the vote. They hope to discourage his opponents enough that they stay home. They are pouring resources into social media to convince opponents that nothing matters, at the same time that they are spurring on supporters with a social media campaign to convince them that they must get out and vote.

It all comes down to the narrative.

Trump and his operatives would not be working so hard to skew the narrative if it were not important. But while they are trying desperately to create a false narrative, based on lies, to sell a pretty package to their base, Trump’s opponents have an extraordinary advantage. A true narrative of democracy is based on reality, and it includes everyone. It is complicated, and compelling. It is the story of the first fisherman who came to these shores and the native peoples who greeted them; it is the story of women who reared children in the wilderness. It is the story of the Civil War, and industrial expansion, and two world wars and the rise of the West after World War II. It is the story of the Tuskegee Airmen and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

It is the story of human self-determination, and the epic tale of how Americans have struggled to create a government that gives us all access to that fundamental human dream.

To people who want to find a way to make a difference, speak up, to your local officials, your friends, your neighbors. What do you hope for the future? Why does it matter that we continue to be a nation of laws? Our voices are only unimportant if we decline to exercise them. And, taken together, they have the power to redefine America from the “carnage” that Trump sees, to the land of hope and possibility it has been in the past… and can be again.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The point is that any appointed system of government is subject to manipulation by the first leader who decides that the country would be a much better place if he/she should be in charge for life.

The advantage of democracy is not that it guarantees the best possible governance, it is that it is the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

That doesn’t mean there are no active vested interests of course, but it does mean that if their actions become too obvious and extreme eventually they will be kicked out.

> The advantage of democracy is not that it guarantees the best possible governance, it is that it is the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

LOL. No. See “select a leader from them by unbiased lottery” from old Athens. That’s the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The point is that any appointed system of government is subject to manipulation by the first leader who decides that the country would be a much better place if he/she should be in charge for life.

The advantage of democracy is not that it guarantees the best possible governance, it is that it is the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

That doesn’t mean there are no active vested interests of course, but it does mean that if their actions become too obvious and extreme eventually they will be kicked out.

> The advantage of democracy is not that it guarantees the best possible governance, it is that it is the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

LOL. No. See “select a leader from them by unbiased lottery” from old Athens. That’s the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

I think a review of how well it worked in old Athens would be in order before we go for that one.

from wiki, for moll

The word suffrage comes from Latin suffragium, which initially meant “a voting-tablet”, “a ballot”, “a vote”, or “the right to vote”. Suffragium in the second century and later came to mean “political patronage, influence, interest, or support”, and sometimes “popular acclaim” or “applause”. By the fourth century the word was used for “an intercession”, asking a patron for their influence with the Almighty. Suffragium was used in the fifth and sixth centuries with connection to buying influence or profiteering from appointing to office, and eventually the word referred to the bribe itself. William Smith rejects the connection of suffragium to sub “under” + fragor “crash, din, shouts (as of approval)”, related to frangere “to break”; Eduard Wunder writes that the word may be related to suffrago, signifying an ankle bone or knuckle bone. In the 17th century the English suffrage regained the earlier meaning of the Latin suffragium, “a vote” or “the right to vote”

I say we let them vote, Parpyone. But just introduce a stupidity tax. Just tax the stupid people.

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

I think once you start picking and choosing who is worthy to vote, you’ve opened the door to the preservation of an elite via disenfranchisement. Remember that universal suffrage did not replace a system where the smart, well-intentioned, pro-social people dominated the vote: it replaced a system where inbred greedy pigfucking aristocrats dominated the vote.

Broad democracy is tough but I think it is worth sticking to.

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

I still cant work out how women got to vote.

Peak Warming Man said:

I still cant work out how women got to vote.

I think some form of legislation was passed by the government of the day.

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I still cant work out how women got to vote.

I think some form of legislation was passed by the government of the day.

That’d be right, government elected by ignorant people.

so what age threshold should we use for allowing vote

SCIENCE said:

so what age threshold should we use for allowing vote

65

Peak Warming Man said:

SCIENCE said:

so what age threshold should we use for allowing vote

65

Heterosexual males 65 and over who have land holdings.

an important aspect of democracy are mechanisms that limit power and influence, excesses, abuse of, so in there somewhere is some ideas regard agreement, limiting the impositional

stupid’s the least of human problems, really, I mean how dumb is a sleeping person, wouldn’t pass an IQ test, ignoring a minority of sleep walkers stupids not much trouble, so there’s possibly a category of wakeful stupid, wakeful overreach

end of the day mostly everyone wants a good sleep, that’s a universal, not helped much by an active category of stupid I might add

there is clever too, apparently, that, by way of force of contrasts and opposites, might keep you from a good sleep, dumb sleep

give me dumb sleep any day, over clever

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

why TAFEC why not OOSHC it’d be just as rigorous

Consider that all trades have some form of prior learning.

This is usually provided by TAFE courses.

Federal Parliament should be no exception.

If you want to be an accountant you need some training

if you want to be a pilot you need some training

Tau, I think you are confused. Are you talking about training politicians or voters?

SCIENCE said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

why TAFEC why not OOSHC it’d be just as rigorous

Out of School Hours Childcare ?

buffy said:

Tau, I think you are confused. Are you talking about training politicians or voters?

pollies

buffy said:

Tau, I think you are confused. Are you talking about training politicians or voters?

Training politicians

I have been saying politicians

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

You could count the pollies who don’t know how it works on one hand. We’re talking about people who are branch members, most likely involved in student politics etc. Even blow-ins like Jacqie Lambie pick it up quickly. Your problem is not with pollies but rather with the values and beliefs of half the population.

I think deep down in their black hearts left wingers would really like to see pigfucking aristocrats up against a wall or dangling from piano wire but in this oppressive society they cant say that…….but come the revolution…………well for the greater good…………….some things, some unpleasant things will need to be done for the greater good.

Peak Warming Man said:

I think deep down in their black hearts left wingers would really like to see pigfucking aristocrats up against a wall or dangling from piano wire but in this oppressive society they cant say that…….but come the revolution…………well for the greater good…………….some things, some unpleasant things will need to be done for the greater good.

Funny you should say that. those rightwingers did a pretty good job 70 odd years ago

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

There’s a difference between knowing what the thing to do is, and having any intention of carrying it out.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

You could count the pollies who don’t know how it works on one hand. We’re talking about people who are branch members, most likely involved in student politics etc. Even blow-ins like Jacqie Lambie pick it up quickly. Your problem is not with pollies but rather with the values and beliefs of half the population.

We’re talking about people who are branch members,

I’m taking about Federal politicos not branch members

Neophyte said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

There’s a difference between knowing what the thing to do is, and having any intention of carrying it out.

True

Peak Warming Man said:

I still cant work out how women got to vote.

In much the same way that it was decided that it wasn’t really reasonable to make people slaves just because they had more recent African ancestry, I suppose.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

You could count the pollies who don’t know how it works on one hand. We’re talking about people who are branch members, most likely involved in student politics etc. Even blow-ins like Jacqie Lambie pick it up quickly. Your problem is not with pollies but rather with the values and beliefs of half the population.

We’re talking about people who are branch members,

I’m taking about Federal politicos not branch members

Branch members could probably do with an introductory course as well.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You could count the pollies who don’t know how it works on one hand. We’re talking about people who are branch members, most likely involved in student politics etc. Even blow-ins like Jacqie Lambie pick it up quickly. Your problem is not with pollies but rather with the values and beliefs of half the population.

We’re talking about people who are branch members,

I’m taking about Federal politicos not branch members

Branch members could probably do with an introductory course as well.

And people working in Federal electorate offices as well.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>> tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected,

No one needs to do a course to vote.

We need higher standards in Federal Parliament.

A TAFE course would provide that. They would be no tough examinations, it would be a course providing information on how the system works.

You could count the pollies who don’t know how it works on one hand. We’re talking about people who are branch members, most likely involved in student politics etc. Even blow-ins like Jacqie Lambie pick it up quickly. Your problem is not with pollies but rather with the values and beliefs of half the population.

We’re talking about people who are branch members,

I’m taking about Federal politicos not branch members

Fuck you’re an idiot. Read what i wrote. Federal pollies are firstly branch members of their party and engage in intraparty democracy. They also know the rules of parliament and engage in party politics in the chamber. The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You could count the pollies who don’t know how it works on one hand. We’re talking about people who are branch members, most likely involved in student politics etc. Even blow-ins like Jacqie Lambie pick it up quickly. Your problem is not with pollies but rather with the values and beliefs of half the population.

We’re talking about people who are branch members,

I’m taking about Federal politicos not branch members

Fuck you’re an idiot. Read what i wrote. Federal pollies are firstly branch members of their party and engage in intraparty democracy. They also know the rules of parliament and engage in party politics in the chamber. The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

Train branch members as well.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

We’re talking about people who are branch members,

I’m taking about Federal politicos not branch members

Fuck you’re an idiot. Read what i wrote. Federal pollies are firstly branch members of their party and engage in intraparty democracy. They also know the rules of parliament and engage in party politics in the chamber. The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

Train branch members as well.

To do what? Not engage their religious convictions in politics? How about leftwing Christians who want to expand government services for the poor and needy? Are they to be banned too? FFS put down the bong: your reasoning is so simplistic it’s tragic.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

We’re talking about people who are branch members,

I’m taking about Federal politicos not branch members

Fuck you’re an idiot. Read what i wrote. Federal pollies are firstly branch members of their party and engage in intraparty democracy. They also know the rules of parliament and engage in party politics in the chamber. The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

Train branch members as well.

Branch Member

Witty Rejoinder said:

The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

I very much doubt that is true.

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

You could apply the above to the politicians themselves, many come across as incompetent, dishonest and narrow minded who aren’t worthy of making decisions that affect so many people.
Personally I find it hard to have respect for any government when they have laws they don’t even obey themselves, the atrocities they are all guilty of is quite disgusting and that’s what we are stuck with

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament. tau solutions are all based on making even more exclusionary to vote or be elected, I suppose like Athens we could have a seperate class of people allowed to vote, maybe just call them the landed gentry.

Moreover the best way to disenfranchise people from political purpose is to make it voluntary, they will exclude themselves. So you get rid of the ignorant oiks who couldn’t be bothered turning up to vote but you get those who can be bothered, white Christian gun nuts anyone?

blinks.

It appears that I agree with the general thrust of that.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Fuck you’re an idiot. Read what i wrote. Federal pollies are firstly branch members of their party and engage in intraparty democracy. They also know the rules of parliament and engage in party politics in the chamber. The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

Train branch members as well.

To do what? Not engage their religious convictions in politics? How about leftwing Christians who want to expand government services for the poor and needy? Are they to be banned too? FFS put down the bong: your reasoning is so simplistic it’s tragic.

To think better, that’s what.

To have higher standards in politics the only way is education.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Fuck you’re an idiot. Read what i wrote. Federal pollies are firstly branch members of their party and engage in intraparty democracy. They also know the rules of parliament and engage in party politics in the chamber. The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

Train branch members as well.

Branch Member

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

You get the above people but you can also get highly educated people of high standing in society that make all the rights moves but should also have no say in the running of the nation.

Cymek said:

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

You get the above people but you can also get highly educated people of high standing in society that make all the rights moves but should also have no say in the running of the nation.

Twiggy forrest for one.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Train branch members as well.

To do what? Not engage their religious convictions in politics? How about leftwing Christians who want to expand government services for the poor and needy? Are they to be banned too? FFS put down the bong: your reasoning is so simplistic it’s tragic.

To think better, that’s what.

To have higher standards in politics the only way is education.

You’re the one who has to learn how to ‘think better’ given how much you engage in faulty reasoning. Maybe a tafe course in how to not be a moron.

AwesomeO said:

So much for inclusion and diversity. Most of this thread boils down to people being upset that people they consider to be ignorant oiks get to vote or worse, have gotten into parliament.

Eh? There’s been 1 post in favour of the OP. How is that “most”?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

To do what? Not engage their religious convictions in politics? How about leftwing Christians who want to expand government services for the poor and needy? Are they to be banned too? FFS put down the bong: your reasoning is so simplistic it’s tragic.

To think better, that’s what.

To have higher standards in politics the only way is education.

You’re the one who has to learn how to ‘think better’ given how much you engage in faulty reasoning. Maybe a tafe course in how to not be a moron.

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

You get the above people but you can also get highly educated people of high standing in society that make all the rights moves but should also have no say in the running of the nation.

Twiggy forrest for one.

Don’t know much about him but in Western governments its mostly old white highly educated men that run the nation for vested interests who don’t care about the population or greater good.
I mean look at how some of them talk they are worse than the crudest bogan when it comes to women, non white people, gays, etc

Bubblecar said:

…the right of every adult to vote. (Or in OZ, the legal obligation of every adult to vote).

Why is this a good idea? Why is it “good” that stupid and/or ill-intentioned, anti-social people have as much say in the running of the country as the most intelligent, informed and socially positive people?

Democracy would clearly benefit from more intellectual and ethical discrimination, but how would we go about this?

Education.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Fuck you’re an idiot. Read what i wrote. Federal pollies are firstly branch members of their party and engage in intraparty democracy. They also know the rules of parliament and engage in party politics in the chamber. The only person who needs education about how government works is you.

Train branch members as well.

Branch Member

chuckle, good one

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

To think better, that’s what.

To have higher standards in politics the only way is education.

You’re the one who has to learn how to ‘think better’ given how much you engage in faulty reasoning. Maybe a tafe course in how to not be a moron.

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

To be fair if you are a public servant your religious belief is irrelevant and you should shut up about it in anything related to your job.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

To think better, that’s what.

To have higher standards in politics the only way is education.

You’re the one who has to learn how to ‘think better’ given how much you engage in faulty reasoning. Maybe a tafe course in how to not be a moron.

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

No i am attacking you because you seem to think a tafe course would change anything especially considering what you really want is not better government but rather pollies who agree with you. As i’ve said before what you object to are the beliefs and values of half the electorate.

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Tau, I think you are confused. Are you talking about training politicians or voters?

Training politicians

I have been saying politicians

The thread is about voting.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’re the one who has to learn how to ‘think better’ given how much you engage in faulty reasoning. Maybe a tafe course in how to not be a moron.

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

To be fair if you are a public servant your religious belief is irrelevant and you should shut up about it in anything related to your job.

How about values like unionism? Should that also be disqualified?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’re the one who has to learn how to ‘think better’ given how much you engage in faulty reasoning. Maybe a tafe course in how to not be a moron.

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

No i am attacking you because you seem to think a tafe course would change anything especially considering what you really want is not better government but rather pollies who agree with you. As i’ve said before what you object to are the beliefs and values of half the electorate.

Education would provide higher standards in Federal Parliament

I’m not engaging in personal attacks.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

To be fair if you are a public servant your religious belief is irrelevant and you should shut up about it in anything related to your job.

How about values like unionism? Should that also be disqualified?

Unions, good.

religion, bad.

end of…

buffy said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Tau, I think you are confused. Are you talking about training politicians or voters?

Training politicians

I have been saying politicians

The thread is about voting.

Everyone should be allowed to vote as any choice seems to be compromised and not ideal no matter who you are.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

No i am attacking you because you seem to think a tafe course would change anything especially considering what you really want is not better government but rather pollies who agree with you. As i’ve said before what you object to are the beliefs and values of half the electorate.

Education would provide higher standards in Federal Parliament

So in your opinion which politicians need education and why?Give me a list:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You are attacking me for wanting higher standards in federal parliament.

To be fair if you are a public servant your religious belief is irrelevant and you should shut up about it in anything related to your job.

How about values like unionism? Should that also be disqualified?

Probably not but they can also be a vested interest so you need to show consideration on decisions you make.
The problem it seems it politicians are compromised by the philosophy they adhere to and this is manipulated by various outsiders who steer them towards decisions that directly benefit them

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Education would provide higher standards in Federal Parliament

So in your opinion which politicians need education and why?Give me a list:

Perhaps politicians should attend a few classes on climate change science :p

Goodness, this is not good…I’m agreeing with Witty. It’s bad enough that occasionally I used to agree with Droppy…

:)

Divine Angel said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Education would provide higher standards in Federal Parliament

So in your opinion which politicians need education and why?Give me a list:

Perhaps politicians should attend a few classes on climate change science :p

You do wonder if they know it’s sound science but just don’t care as money is involved and they have a finger in the pie that looses out if we actually take responsibility

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No i am attacking you because you seem to think a tafe course would change anything especially considering what you really want is not better government but rather pollies who agree with you. As i’ve said before what you object to are the beliefs and values of half the electorate.

Education would provide higher standards in Federal Parliament

So in your opinion which politicians need education and why?Give me a list:

It does seem to be accepted that politicians can talk and act in ways that aren’t acceptable in a workplace and would/should get them reprimanded and face disciplinary action.

buffy said:

Goodness, this is not good…I’m agreeing with Witty. It’s bad enough that occasionally I used to agree with Droppy…

:)

You wait until you agree with me…

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

Goodness, this is not good…I’m agreeing with Witty. It’s bad enough that occasionally I used to agree with Droppy…

:)

You wait until you agree with me…

I can beat that.

I agreed with awesome just now.

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

To be fair if you are a public servant your religious belief is irrelevant and you should shut up about it in anything related to your job.

How about values like unionism? Should that also be disqualified?

Probably not but they can also be a vested interest so you need to show consideration on decisions you make.
The problem it seems it politicians are compromised by the philosophy they adhere to and this is manipulated by various outsiders who steer them towards decisions that directly benefit them

there was sort of an expansionist contempt in neutrino’s earlier posts, tending hostile generalizations, along with appeals to an undefined we, courting agreement, hints of imaginary friends. Stating an obvious and inviting comparisons

thing about contempt (as a way) is it creates an overly adverse environment which is unlikely to attract better suited people to the job, they are unlikely to offer themselves to such hostility, volunteer for, be an answer to the range of feral discontents

so how old

transition said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

How about values like unionism? Should that also be disqualified?

Probably not but they can also be a vested interest so you need to show consideration on decisions you make.
The problem it seems it politicians are compromised by the philosophy they adhere to and this is manipulated by various outsiders who steer them towards decisions that directly benefit them

there was sort of an expansionist contempt in neutrino’s earlier posts, tending hostile generalizations, along with appeals to an undefined we, courting agreement, hints of imaginary friends. Stating an obvious and inviting comparisons

thing about contempt (as a way) is it creates an overly adverse environment which is unlikely to attract better suited people to the job, they are unlikely to offer themselves to such hostility, volunteer for, be an answer to the range of feral discontents

if we think people are talking shit then we have an obligation to tell them. how else will they improve?

ChrispenEvan said:

transition said:

Cymek said:

Probably not but they can also be a vested interest so you need to show consideration on decisions you make.
The problem it seems it politicians are compromised by the philosophy they adhere to and this is manipulated by various outsiders who steer them towards decisions that directly benefit them

there was sort of an expansionist contempt in neutrino’s earlier posts, tending hostile generalizations, along with appeals to an undefined we, courting agreement, hints of imaginary friends. Stating an obvious and inviting comparisons

thing about contempt (as a way) is it creates an overly adverse environment which is unlikely to attract better suited people to the job, they are unlikely to offer themselves to such hostility, volunteer for, be an answer to the range of feral discontents

if we think people are talking shit then we have an obligation to tell them. how else will they improve?

education

ChrispenEvan said:

transition said:

Cymek said:

Probably not but they can also be a vested interest so you need to show consideration on decisions you make.
The problem it seems it politicians are compromised by the philosophy they adhere to and this is manipulated by various outsiders who steer them towards decisions that directly benefit them

there was sort of an expansionist contempt in neutrino’s earlier posts, tending hostile generalizations, along with appeals to an undefined we, courting agreement, hints of imaginary friends. Stating an obvious and inviting comparisons

thing about contempt (as a way) is it creates an overly adverse environment which is unlikely to attract better suited people to the job, they are unlikely to offer themselves to such hostility, volunteer for, be an answer to the range of feral discontents

if we think people are talking shit then we have an obligation to tell them. how else will they improve?

contempt is little studied, somewhat an artform in Australia, elevated variously by trying to make it respectable

transition said:

ChrispenEvan said:

transition said:

there was sort of an expansionist contempt in neutrino’s earlier posts, tending hostile generalizations, along with appeals to an undefined we, courting agreement, hints of imaginary friends. Stating an obvious and inviting comparisons

thing about contempt (as a way) is it creates an overly adverse environment which is unlikely to attract better suited people to the job, they are unlikely to offer themselves to such hostility, volunteer for, be an answer to the range of feral discontents

if we think people are talking shit then we have an obligation to tell them. how else will they improve?

contempt is little studied, somewhat an artform in Australia, elevated variously by trying to make it respectable

Maybe contempt is in the eye of the beholder.

There seems to be a fair bit of it directed neutrino’s way in this thread anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if we think people are talking shit then we have an obligation to tell them. how else will they improve?

contempt is little studied, somewhat an artform in Australia, elevated variously by trying to make it respectable

Maybe contempt is in the eye of the beholder.

There seems to be a fair bit of it directed neutrino’s way in this thread anyway.

yeah agreed, but i’d add the notion everything is political has problems, and pauline, and car by way of this thread, invite everyone into the same error

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

contempt is little studied, somewhat an artform in Australia, elevated variously by trying to make it respectable

Maybe contempt is in the eye of the beholder.

There seems to be a fair bit of it directed neutrino’s way in this thread anyway.

yeah agreed, but i’d add the notion everything is political has problems, and pauline, and car by way of this thread, invite everyone into the same error

well, I was thinking across to the other thread, a previous thread of rb’s actually, possibly mistakenly, assumed it was hanging in the aether here

still i’d argue the enthusiasm for making everything political is contagious, a contagion, even the progressives end up being rightists

Lead me not into temptation…one of the ways can be cleaned up, (not suddenly filled with suitably intelligent and charming individuals) is to have a good long look at the rules.

Donations should be transparent and easily available for checking, you can fuck off study tours, likewise have someone other than the minister approve travel entitlements. In the scheme of things only small changes, but easily done. The damage to credibility is based on relatively small amounts of money compared to the damage done.

Generally I am an optimist, I think most politicians are decent, very hard working and just trying to do the right thing albeit from a political philosophy I may not agree with. But anyone decent can be tempted by easy money or solutions, so it’s best to remove temptations.

mollwollfumble said:

Dang, I came up with a beautiful system of government just a year or so ago. Now what was it? Found it.

Suppose we have no leader but a governing council with these seven positions:

• The vision
• The voice
• The executive
• The villain
• The people
• The budget
• The pedant

The vision. Sets national and international and environmental policy. Looks far ahead. Has access to the complete bank of knowledge.

The voice. Government spokesman. Diplomat. Hears suggestions and complaints.

The executive. Gets things done. Organises anything, anytime, anywhere. Manufacturing, transport, building, jobs. Army. Emergency services.

The villain. Searches out and eliminates crime and corruption.

The people. Education. Health. Social welfare. Resolves disputes. Personal freedoms.

The budget. Responsible for all government accounts.

The pedant. Ensures that the letter of the law exactly matches its intent. Replaces the current senate.

I should have added. The positions for all these posts to be filled by interview panel. And headhunting. Not by vote.

transition said:

from wiki, for moll

The word suffrage comes from Latin suffragium, which initially meant “a voting-tablet”, “a ballot”, “a vote”, or “the right to vote”. Suffragium in the second century and later came to mean “political patronage, influence, interest, or support”, and sometimes “popular acclaim” or “applause”. By the fourth century the word was used for “an intercession”, asking a patron for their influence with the Almighty. Suffragium was used in the fifth and sixth centuries with connection to buying influence or profiteering from appointing to office, and eventually the word referred to the bribe itself. William Smith rejects the connection of suffragium to sub “under” + fragor “crash, din, shouts (as of approval)”, related to frangere “to break”; Eduard Wunder writes that the word may be related to suffrago, signifying an ankle bone or knuckle bone. In the 17th century the English suffrage regained the earlier meaning of the Latin suffragium, “a vote” or “the right to vote”

Ta. Didn’t know that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> The advantage of democracy is not that it guarantees the best possible governance, it is that it is the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

LOL. No. See “select a leader from them by unbiased lottery” from old Athens. That’s the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

I think a review of how well it worked in old Athens would be in order before we go for that one.

It worked until the top members of the government started dying off too fast. That’s less likely to happen these days.

In Rome, failure came largely because of the battle between the altruistic and the corrupt. Every altruistic leader was killed off by the corrupt faction and every corrupt leader was killed off by the altruistic faction. The dominant source of corruption was the Praetorian Guard, which is the exact analog of the US Secret Service (the bloated organisation of bodyguards and others). The Praetorian Guard got to the point of selling the leadership of Rome to the highest bidder, it did that resulting in howls of protest from the populace. At another time one altruistic senator refused to become leader until his wife and children were all threatened with execution by the altruistic faction.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Dang, I came up with a beautiful system of government just a year or so ago. Now what was it? Found it.

Suppose we have no leader but a governing council with these seven positions:

• The vision
• The voice
• The executive
• The villain
• The people
• The budget
• The pedant

The vision. Sets national and international and environmental policy. Looks far ahead. Has access to the complete bank of knowledge.

The voice. Government spokesman. Diplomat. Hears suggestions and complaints.

The executive. Gets things done. Organises anything, anytime, anywhere. Manufacturing, transport, building, jobs. Army. Emergency services.

The villain. Searches out and eliminates crime and corruption.

The people. Education. Health. Social welfare. Resolves disputes. Personal freedoms.

The budget. Responsible for all government accounts.

The pedant. Ensures that the letter of the law exactly matches its intent. Replaces the current senate.

I should have added. The positions for all these posts to be filled by interview panel. And headhunting. Not by vote.

transition said:

from wiki, for moll

The word suffrage comes from Latin suffragium, which initially meant “a voting-tablet”, “a ballot”, “a vote”, or “the right to vote”. Suffragium in the second century and later came to mean “political patronage, influence, interest, or support”, and sometimes “popular acclaim” or “applause”. By the fourth century the word was used for “an intercession”, asking a patron for their influence with the Almighty. Suffragium was used in the fifth and sixth centuries with connection to buying influence or profiteering from appointing to office, and eventually the word referred to the bribe itself. William Smith rejects the connection of suffragium to sub “under” + fragor “crash, din, shouts (as of approval)”, related to frangere “to break”; Eduard Wunder writes that the word may be related to suffrago, signifying an ankle bone or knuckle bone. In the 17th century the English suffrage regained the earlier meaning of the Latin suffragium, “a vote” or “the right to vote”

Ta. Didn’t know that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> The advantage of democracy is not that it guarantees the best possible governance, it is that it is the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

LOL. No. See “select a leader from them by unbiased lottery” from old Athens. That’s the most difficult system for people with vested interests to manipulate.

I think a review of how well it worked in old Athens would be in order before we go for that one.

It worked until the top members of the government started dying off too fast. That’s less likely to happen these days.

In Rome, failure came largely because of the battle between the altruistic and the corrupt. Every altruistic leader was killed off by the corrupt faction and every corrupt leader was killed off by the altruistic faction. The dominant source of corruption was the Praetorian Guard, which is the exact analog of the US Secret Service (the bloated organisation of bodyguards and others). The Praetorian Guard got to the point of selling the leadership of Rome to the highest bidder, it did that resulting in howls of protest from the populace. At another time one altruistic senator refused to become leader until his wife and children were all threatened with execution by the altruistic faction.

Ref?

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Dang, I came up with a beautiful system of government just a year or so ago. Now what was it? Found it.

Suppose we have no leader but a governing council with these seven positions:

• The vision
• The voice
• The executive
• The villain
• The people
• The budget
• The pedant

The vision. Sets national and international and environmental policy. Looks far ahead. Has access to the complete bank of knowledge.

The voice. Government spokesman. Diplomat. Hears suggestions and complaints.

The executive. Gets things done. Organises anything, anytime, anywhere. Manufacturing, transport, building, jobs. Army. Emergency services.

The villain. Searches out and eliminates crime and corruption.

The people. Education. Health. Social welfare. Resolves disputes. Personal freedoms.

The budget. Responsible for all government accounts.

The pedant. Ensures that the letter of the law exactly matches its intent. Replaces the current senate.

I should have added. The positions for all these posts to be filled by interview panel. And headhunting. Not by vote.

I think a review of how well it worked in old Athens would be in order before we go for that one.

It worked until the top members of the government started dying off too fast. That’s less likely to happen these days.

In Rome, failure came largely because of the battle between the altruistic and the corrupt. Every altruistic leader was killed off by the corrupt faction and every corrupt leader was killed off by the altruistic faction. The dominant source of corruption was the Praetorian Guard, which is the exact analog of the US Secret Service (the bloated organisation of bodyguards and others). The Praetorian Guard got to the point of selling the leadership of Rome to the highest bidder, it did that resulting in howls of protest from the populace. At another time one altruistic senator refused to become leader until his wife and children were all threatened with execution by the altruistic faction.

Ref?

Sounds a lot like Shakespeare…

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Dang, I came up with a beautiful system of government just a year or so ago. Now what was it? Found it.

Suppose we have no leader but a governing council with these seven positions:

• The vision
• The voice
• The executive
• The villain
• The people
• The budget
• The pedant

The vision. Sets national and international and environmental policy. Looks far ahead. Has access to the complete bank of knowledge.

The voice. Government spokesman. Diplomat. Hears suggestions and complaints.

The executive. Gets things done. Organises anything, anytime, anywhere. Manufacturing, transport, building, jobs. Army. Emergency services.

The villain. Searches out and eliminates crime and corruption.

The people. Education. Health. Social welfare. Resolves disputes. Personal freedoms.

The budget. Responsible for all government accounts.

The pedant. Ensures that the letter of the law exactly matches its intent. Replaces the current senate.

I should have added. The positions for all these posts to be filled by interview panel. And headhunting. Not by vote.

I think a review of how well it worked in old Athens would be in order before we go for that one.

It worked until the top members of the government started dying off too fast. That’s less likely to happen these days.

In Rome, failure came largely because of the battle between the altruistic and the corrupt. Every altruistic leader was killed off by the corrupt faction and every corrupt leader was killed off by the altruistic faction. The dominant source of corruption was the Praetorian Guard, which is the exact analog of the US Secret Service (the bloated organisation of bodyguards and others). The Praetorian Guard got to the point of selling the leadership of Rome to the highest bidder, it did that resulting in howls of protest from the populace. At another time one altruistic senator refused to become leader until his wife and children were all threatened with execution by the altruistic faction.

Ref?

Wollfumble, M. Feb 2020.