How much do you actually believe in the political system? (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

Too complex to lump into one category. I believe politicians for the most part to be noble creatures and can not think of a less faulty political system then ours but suspect under this system the party which can deliver the best government are unlikely to ever be elected.

 

[SylviaB]

Too complex to lump into one category. I believe politicians for the most part to be noble creatures

WOW epic trolling

 

[BlackDragon]

Too complex to lump into one category. I believe politicians for the most part to be noble creatures and can not think of a less faulty political system then ours

The Westminster System (House of Reps, Senate, and Opposition) is a pretty good way to enact democracy. But I certainly don't think this system is the be-all-and-end-all within democracy, and neither do I think that about democracy itself. We need longer terms, firstly. A lengthening of the political cycle will to a certain extent help to remove the populist nature of most governmental terms. And I also think the structure of the government needs to such that it is composed of experts in the various fields of human activity - scientists, philosophers, economics. This is particularly true for the house of reps or what ever will function as the legislative. In terms of the role of the senate, the idea which is in place now isn't so bad, but another option would be to have a house that consists of regular citizens of varying fields that are drawn for a certain term. This could act as a litmus test for the policies that the experts are creating. Though this is problematic.

Also I think that the concept of an opposition, as in two major groups..government and non-government, is overated. There should be a better accountability system than this, which just leads to populism and endless political debate.

but suspect under this system the party which can deliver the best government are unlikely to ever be elected.

What do you mean?

 

[badquinton304]

The Westminster System (House of Reps, Senate, and Opposition) is a pretty good way to enact democracy. But I certainly don't think this system is the be-all-and-end-all within democracy, and neither do I think that about democracy itself. We need longer terms, firstly. A lengthening of the political cycle will to a certain extent help to remove the populist nature of most governmental terms. And I also think the structure of the government needs to such that it is composed of experts in the various fields of human activity - scientists, philosophers, economics. This is particularly true for the house of reps or what ever will function as the legislative. In terms of the role of the senate, the idea which is in place now isn't so bad, but another option would be to have a house that consists of regular citizens of varying fields that are drawn for a certain term. This could act as a litmus test for the policies that the experts are creating. Though this is problematic.

Also I think that the concept of an opposition, as in two major groups..government and non-government, is overated. There should be a better accountability system than this, which just leads to populism and endless political debate.



What do you mean?

Technocracy?

 

[BlackDragon]

To a certain extent, but not completely. An aspect of this would help, its still democratic. One problem is that we can't be completely focused on getting the best result using the best experts because, to a certain extent, there can be no objectively 'best' outcome. Everyone will disagree at some point. So then the question is, do we focus on getting the fairest outcome instead?

 

[Lentern]

The Westminster System (House of Reps, Senate, and Opposition) is a pretty good way to enact democracy. But I certainly don't think this system is the be-all-and-end-all within democracy, and neither do I think that about democracy itself. We need longer terms, firstly. A lengthening of the political cycle will to a certain extent help to remove the populist nature of most governmental terms. And I also think the structure of the government needs to such that it is composed of experts in the various fields of human activity - scientists, philosophers, economics. This is particularly true for the house of reps or what ever will function as the legislative. In terms of the role of the senate, the idea which is in place now isn't so bad, but another option would be to have a house that consists of regular citizens of varying fields that are drawn for a certain term. This could act as a litmus test for the policies that the experts are creating. Though this is problematic.

Also I think that the concept of an opposition, as in two major groups..government and non-government, is overated. There should be a better accountability system than this, which just leads to populism and endless political debate.



What do you mean?

The government will only be as good as the majority will let it be is what i mean.

 

[Lentern]

WOW epic trolling

Yes the intellectual cream of our society, capable of winning top jobs in major firms etc decide to subject themselves to public scrutiny and a middle class wage for the fun of it.

 

[BlackDragon]

Yeah, so this is a valid point. I'm not sure, although I hate to say it, improving society in the sense of always making the best decision can be the goal (or complete goal) of governence. This is because there can be no objective opinion on what the right thing to do is. It might seem obvious that a person that wants to preserve the world around us makes more sense than another person that wants to develop shopping malls for money, but in reality both opinions have validity. So perhaps, frustratingly, one might have to consider that the role of governments is not to make the 'best' decision but to make whatever decision is fairest apriori. (as Kant would say)

 

[Iron]

i believe she's a hum dinger, but side with lentern in saying that it's useless when the people are as rotten as they are.

Also poll options evaluating government based on its ability to affect "change" and 'difference' is rubbish

 

[Fish Tank]

also poll options evaluating government based on its ability to affect "change" and 'difference' is rubbish

+1

 

[BlackDragon]

I didn't think we were evaluating government but rather our political mechanisms.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Good post KFunk. I will get to it when I have the time to reply properly.

 

[philphie]

go back to South Park or go marry a llama

 

[occer]

Vote or die.