Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Whyayeman]

Another possibility is term limits for all politicians. If they are restricted to, say, no more than two 5 year terms, this allows for the development of expertise in governing without them becoming too entrenched. It also reduces the opportunities for politicians to get too cosy with lobbyists, commercial interests and other potential sources of corruption. It's also a way to minimise the dominance of old white males by ensuring that there is a regular turnover of politicians.

The main disadvantage is loss of expertise and potential risk to continuity.

OB

That is an interesting idea. The lack of political experience might well be compensated for by a wider industrial, professional or commercial grounding. After, say, ten years, MPs were simply debarred for a period (or for ever!). A new crop would be voted in, with fresh experience of the world outside politics. The links with pressure groups, the media and big donors would be weakened.

Bradskii's point about the more narrowly political backgrounds of our current crop of MPs is in contrast to this - and I think it shows.

 

[stevevw]

Money is not. The LOVE of Money is.

Yes sorry the luv of money. lol.

 

[Fantine]

Taking big money out of politics would solve most of our oligarchical democracy's problems.

Shorter, publicly funded campaigns. An end to misleading media soundbites and attack ads.

No more legislators who care more about their benefactors than their constituents.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Yes sorry the luv of money. lol.

Back to the topic, though, America was designed as a republic, not a democracy. Never has been. Electors were sent by each state legislature to cast their votes, no public election involved. Same as congressmen and senators. In principle, public elections were only held at local level, not federal levels, the president is INdirectly elected.

 

[Whyayeman]

America was designed as a republic, not a democracy.

It would be interesting to tease out this distinction. Res Publica: thing of the public; a state governed by the public, however defined. Democracy; ruled by the people, however defined.

Does this get us anywhere? It strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Taking big money out of politics would solve most of our oligarchical democracy's problems.

Shorter, publicly funded campaigns. An end to misleading media soundbites and attack ads.

No more legislators who care more about their benefactors than their constituents.

These are, I dare say we all agree, desirable. The first two could be achieved in large part by legislation; UK politicians are already limited by law as to how much can be spent on their campaigns, though we all know that there are ways round the law through indirect support.

Legislation against the media is much trickier, impinging on the right to the free speech enshrined in the democracies we belong to.

The last is entirely a matter for the electorate.

 

[Bradskii]

Taking big money out of politics would solve most of our oligarchical democracy's problems.

Most definitely. There has to be a reasonable limit, otherwise the bigger war chest quite often wins.

Shorter, publicly funded campaigns.

That's not a bad solution to the above problem.

An end to misleading media soundbites and attack ads.

There's already legislation to help avoid a political party from misleading the public. But how you do that with the media is whole new ball game. I'm not even sure it's possible to solve. And attack ads? Well, if I were standing for election I think I'd want to be able to say 'Do you think you want this guy in Parliament? He's been quiet about it but what he wants to do is X and Y. Is that what you really want?'

No more legislators who care more about their benefactors than their constituents.

You can simply not vote for them.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

It would be interesting to tease out this distinction. Res Publica: thing of the public; a state governed by the public, however defined. Democracy; ruled by the people, however defined.

Does this get us anywhere? It strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

I’ve explained the difference- in a republic, the president is INdirectly elected by representatives of the people, not directly by the people. A democracy, where a state is ruled by the people, resulted in the reign of terror after the French Revolution.

 

[Pommer]

What do you mean by adding a theocracy to the list? We're already living in a theocracy - of climate change! It is undeniable that there has been many extreme weather conditions in recent years, that is real science; but attributing those to human activities, and demanding for elimination of fossil fuel and red meat in the name of protecting the planet, that's a religion, religion of Gaia worship.

Our mother Gaia
Will have to have a fever
Just so we all know

 

[Pommer]

Money is not. The LOVE of Money is.

Money is a tool that doesn’t actually “exist”.

 

[Bradskii]

I’ve explained the difference- in a republic, the president is INdirectly elected by representatives of the people, not directly by the people. A democracy, where a state is ruled by the people, resulted in the reign of terror after the French Revolution.

All you've done is put an extra stage in. The electoral college votes invariably follow the will of the people. You vote for one guy (or gal) or the other. There are arguments for and against that being better than say the Australian method of voting for someone to represent you locally and then the party with the majority of members gets to form government and then vote for their leader. Who then becomes the Prime Minister.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

All you've done is put an extra stage in. The electoral college votes invariably follow the will of the people. You vote for one guy (or gal) or the other. There are arguments for and against that being better than say the Australian method of voting for someone to represent you locally and then the party with the majority of members gets to form government and then vote for their leader. Who then becomes the Prime Minister.

Um, actually that's more like the will of the state legislature, not the will of the people. You have heard it was written, "you shall not the take the name of the Lord in vain," but neither shall you take the name of the people in vain.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’ve explained the difference- in a republic, the president is INdirectly elected by representatives of the people, not directly by the people. A democracy, where a state is ruled by the people, resulted in the reign of terror after the French Revolution.

But that ain't the difference. Republic and Democracy (in the standard modern usage) describe two different things:

A *republic* is a nation without a hereditary leader. The US is a republic because *no* offices of government are hereditary.

A *democracy* is a nation where the primary government power is derived from the actions of the people through voting. The major components of US government (President, Congress, and similar at state and local levels) are elected.

A nation can be one but not the other, both, or neither.

The US is both. (So is Germany, France, Mexico, etc.)

The UK is a democracy (elected government) but not a republic since they have a queen. (an automatic disqualifier) (See also The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, etc.)

China is a republic (no Queen), but it is not a democracy. (Not in any meaningful fashion.) So is Russia. (This category was a little tricky since some non-democratic republics have effectively turned themselves into crypto-monarchies where the "president" is succeeded by his son or another relative (see Cuba, pre-invasion Iraq, Syria, North Korea)

Some monarchies are non-democratic, and are thus neither, like Saudi Arabia.

 

[Bradskii]

Um, actually that's more like the will of the state legislature, not the will of the people.

Do you mean in the US? The states nominate the electoral college but they almost without exception follow the will of the people. The times that individuals don't are few and far between and changing their vote has never swung an election.

It seems an unnecessary system to me, but in any case it's always been the will of the people that has been followed.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

But that ain't the difference. Republic and Democracy (in the standard modern usage) describe two different things:

A *republic* is a nation without a hereditary leader. The US is a republic because *no* offices of government are hereditary.

A *democracy* is a nation where the primary government power is derived from the actions of the people through voting. The major components of US government (President, Congress, and similar at state and local levels) are elected.

A nation can be one but not the other, both, or neither.

The US is both. (So is Germany, France, Mexico, etc.)

The UK is a democracy (elected government) but not a republic since they have a queen. (an automatic disqualifier) (See also The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, etc.)

China is a republic (no Queen), but it is not a democracy. (Not in any meaningful fashion.) So is Russia. (This category was a little tricky since some non-democratic republics have effectively turned themselves into crypto-monarchies where the "president" is succeeded by his son or another relative (see Cuba, pre-invasion Iraq, Syria, North Korea)

Some monarchies are non-democratic, and are thus neither, like Saudi Arabia.

You know, either republic or democracy is better than the current bureaucracy and theocracy. We've got numerous non-elected government agencies and a demonic climate cult, and those are real bosses making policies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You know, either republic or democracy is better than the current bureaucracy and theocracy. We've got numerous non-elected government agencies and a demonic climate cult, and those are real bosses making policies.

Good thing the US is *both* a democracy and a republic and definitely not a theocracy. (Bureaucrats, we definitely have those.)

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Good thing the US is *both* a democracy and a republic and definitely not a theocracy. (Bureaucrats, we definitely have those.)

Theocracy or not depends on your view of today's various ideologies, especially "transgenderism" and "climate change". If you believe those are real science as they say they are, then no, not a theocracy; if you are smart enough to see that those are political ideologies disguised as science, then that's a theocracy, regardless of your wishful thinking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Theocracy or not depends on your view of today's various ideologies, especially "transgenderism" and "climate change".

Neither of those are ideologies, but even if they were (and they are not) they are still not religions. (Nor do they control the government as would be required for a theology. So your "theology" claim fails on 3 grounds: the "religion" is not in control of the government, the "ideology" is not a religion, and the (whatever it is) is not an ideology.

If you believe those are real science as they say they are, then no, not a theocracy;

Transgenderism isn't a science, so this statement is irrelevant in that case, but climatology *is* a science.

if you are smart enough to see that those are political ideologies disguised as science, then that's a theocracy, regardless of your wishful thinking.

Nope. Climatology is a science and not politics or ideology. I hazard a guess (a well informed guess) that I know far more about climatology than you do and even more about the nature of science.

 

[Pommer]

Um, actually that's more like the will of the state legislature, not the will of the people. You have heard it was written, "you shall not the take the name of the Lord in vain," but neither shall you take the name of the people in vain.

“We, the State Legislatures, of the United States of America…”?

Don’t crack wise with the sheepskin fella.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

“We, the State Legislatures, of the United States of America…”?

Don’t crack wise with the sheepskin fella.

Is state legislature not an assembly of people?

 

[Bradskii]

Theocracy or not depends on your view of today's various ideologies, especially "transgenderism" and "climate change". If you believe those are real science as they say they are, then no, not a theocracy; if you are smart enough to see that those are political ideologies disguised as science, then that's a theocracy, regardless of your wishful thinking.

Good grief...count to ten, Bradskii.

Mate, I know this is what could be described as a political thread as it is discussing how we choose our political leaders. But this is NOT a thread for discussing politics per se. So please, take your transgenderism and climate complaints plus any other bees you have in your bonnet about anything else except the subject of this thread to threads that actually discuss those matters! You seem intent on derailing this one and I will report the next post you make that tries to do that.