With the latest stream of bs coming down from the politicians and their buddies, I really wonder, what is the point of electing representatives?
On one hand we should count ourselves lucky, that we actually have some sense of democracy and aren't the mess that places like Zimbabwe are.
On the other hand, I think democracy in the ideal doesn't exist. There is no transparency in government actions. There is no consultation of the public. Instead we hear random snippets through the media of the latest backroom deal.
So would we be better served without elected officials?
...not that I don't think living in constant fear wouldn't in some ways be a good thing. But I think we might end up wasting even more time with vote pandering / short-term "stay in office" thinking instead of long-term vision. But we certainly don't want people getting too comfortable.
okay so no vote then how about If a group of people is large enough (say 1000 people ) and agrees that it was a very bad decision they get the right to knee cap the offender with a wooden baseball bat...
DeanK - I agree with the sentiment but disagree on the number (I'm sure there are 1000 people on either side of any issue so we'd just be declaring war) and on the means. Pacifist and what not.
Every resident issued a voting card tied to biometrics?
I could still see only the passionate from both sides coming out, but perhaps it would be a good enough driver to get people involved. I think however for the most part... people would vote NO to most everything simply because of the cost instead of considering the merit.
...I just wonder if we'll end up excluding certain groups (those without a computer, senior citizens, the homeless, women (as men outnumber women 4 to 1 in Internet use).
And holding full-scale election type votes which work hard to reach everyone would be costly.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DeanK</cite>yeah but 1000 people who feel passionate enough to know they are going to be personally responsible for someone being gravely injured?</blockquote>
Point taken. But then what about pacifists like me who would care about the issue but refuse to hurt someone? ;)
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DeanK</cite>I think however for the most part... people would vote NO to most everything simply because of the cost instead of considering the merit.</blockquote>Really? I think once people got involved you might actually see things change.
Take this small microcosm for example - you have people supporting some things. The RRC is an example that generally gets overall support.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: bree9643</cite>Online for efficiency?
...I just wonder if we'll end up excluding certain groups (those without a computer, senior citizens, the homeless, women (as men outnumber women 4 to 1 in Internet use).
And holding full-scale election type votes which work hard to reach everyone would be costly.</blockquote>Well you could still have in-person voting...but that's just details. Also remember that there's free internet access at libraries.
My dream was always a required course in civic education in high school. Teach students the value of being involved in their communities and governments. Units on activism, media awareness, levels of government, law reform, etc. People don't vote or vote "incorrectly" not because they don't care or are idiots, but because they've been either misinformed or are (justifiably) cynical about the political process (not only the vote).
Teach "the masses" to think critically, help them understand the process and show them the variety of ways they can get involved in it. An informed and inspired citizenry, that'll scare the shit outta anyone who wants to sit on their ass or make private deals in office.