What’s gone wrong with democracy?

[RuralEngineer]

The citizenry went wrong with democracy.  Democracy is a deeply flawed political system that could be, at best, described as the "least bad" idea that we've come up with.  I no longer subscribe to this theory (that it's the least bad), but supposedly, the rest of the country does.  However, in order for democracy to work you need to have an informed electorate who are willing to make an effort to ensure that the people we elect aren't complete sociopaths.  Our electorate has allowed our political system become one that screens FOR sociopaths, selecting the best liar (usually with a hint of dog show about it as things like attractiveness and "likeability" become critical).

[Xan]

RuralEngineer, do you have another system which has taken the "least bad" mantle?  Or do you just think that democracy is as bad as any others?

[RuralEngineer]

My views are somewhat radical and don't align well with quite a bit of this forum, as I believe in involuntary civil service (in certain situations).  For example, if our nation were under attack, I would support a draft (but not for foreign wars).  Along this type of line, I would like to see an experiment where we remove most of the human element from our election process, acknowledging the fact that most of the electorate can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.  Instead I'd like to preserve the basic structure of our government, checks and balances, three branches, etc., and select the individuals to fill the various positions by a draft lottery.  We would need to have some kind of screening criteria to ensure that a basic level of competency is met for all candidates in the pool, but precedent for that is already there with age limits (which is actually a fairly arbitrary criteria to use).

The basic idea behind my philosophy is that the ideal representative government is a democracy where the officials are elected by an informed and passionate citizenry who monitors and cares for their government, making sure to prune any dead wood or straighten the wayward branches, much like a fruit tree.  What we have now is a tree that's been left to it's own devices, it bears little fruit and what fruit it does produces is toxic and full of worms.  I'm suggesting we give up on the ideal, reject the horrible, and aim firmly for average.  A lottery with suitable selection criteria should produce a random sample that would ensure a level of performance well above what we are getting today, while still falling short of the "ideal" democracy.

Additionally, because I think that the fact there would no longer be political campaigns, if we managed to accidentally select a real asshole to a major position, like President, the barriers to impeachment would be minimal.  It would be in both parties interest to get the putz out and get a replacement in.  I think such a system would greatly reduce polarization overall. 

In fact, the only real negatives I can see is the "noob" factor, whereby, because of strict term limits, we'd have fresh people in all the time, you'd lose the "experience" of being in Congress (I maintain this is NOT a bad thing), but since the staffers that help with the day to day bill writing and such could stay on between officials, I think this could be mitigated.  The other one is obviously the involuntary service.  This one is unavoidable.  However, the main problem with our current system is that it actually selects for sociopaths.  If we want things to get better, maybe getting rid of the people who REALLY want to be in power is not a bad way to go.  I realize that offends a lot of people, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.  I guess if this pie in the sky idea ever were to become reality, some people would have to flee to Canada and be branded draft dodgers.

[Mountaineer]

My views are somewhat radical and don't align well with quite a bit of this forum, as I believe in involuntary civil service (in certain situations).  For example, if our nation were under attack, I would support a draft (but not for foreign wars).  Along this type of line, I would like to see an experiment where we remove most of the human element from our election process, acknowledging the fact that most of the electorate can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.  Instead I'd like to preserve the basic structure of our government, checks and balances, three branches, etc., and select the individuals to fill the various positions by a draft lottery.  We would need to have some kind of screening criteria to ensure that a basic level of competency is met for all candidates in the pool, but precedent for that is already there with age limits (which is actually a fairly arbitrary criteria to use).

The basic idea behind my philosophy is that the ideal representative government is a democracy where the officials are elected by an informed and passionate citizenry who monitors and cares for their government, making sure to prune any dead wood or straighten the wayward branches, much like a fruit tree.  What we have now is a tree that's been left to it's own devices, it bears little fruit and what fruit it does produces is toxic and full of worms.  I'm suggesting we give up on the ideal, reject the horrible, and aim firmly for average.  A lottery with suitable selection criteria should produce a random sample that would ensure a level of performance well above what we are getting today, while still falling short of the "ideal" democracy.

Additionally, because I think that the fact there would no longer be political campaigns, if we managed to accidentally select a real asshole to a major position, like President, the barriers to impeachment would be minimal.  It would be in both parties interest to get the putz out and get a replacement in.  I think such a system would greatly reduce polarization overall. 

In fact, the only real negatives I can see is the "noob" factor, whereby, because of strict term limits, we'd have fresh people in all the time, you'd lose the "experience" of being in Congress (I maintain this is NOT a bad thing), but since the staffers that help with the day to day bill writing and such could stay on between officials, I think this could be mitigated.  The other one is obviously the involuntary service.  This one is unavoidable.  However, the main problem with our current system is that it actually selects for sociopaths.  If we want things to get better, maybe getting rid of the people who REALLY want to be in power is not a bad way to go.  I realize that offends a lot of people, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.  I guess if this pie in the sky idea ever were to become reality, some people would have to flee to Canada and be branded draft dodgers.

Don't let it go to your head, but your views do not seem so radical.  In addition to the lottery for filling federal jobs, I would even go for mandatory civil service for a couple of years after high school graduation (military, road crew, pick up trash, etc.) as I think it would help us all understand the benefits of living in a great country and giving time and energy to help keep it that way. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Shouldn't economics be just the facts behind buying, selling, markets, etc. If you do A, B will happen, etc. and not just justification for imposing your preferred politics on everyone?  Isn't it possible to state e.g. here is the way these systems behave under conditions a, b, c etc?  I realize this may be a naive question and am aware the economics is not considered a science by at least some.

That's because the facts behind economics are actually that of human behavior.  So the delineation is really more about voluntary persuasion vs coercive force, but the motivations behind either is all due to behavorial neuroscience.