The faults of the representative democracy system

Post Reply New Topic

Nope. Anything with humans will be corrupt. However, it would prevent some of the problems associated with our current system.

It prevents 51% of the population driving 49% into a war they don't want. It prevents 99% of the population declaring the other 1% second class citizens simply for being black. It guarantees that everyone has an equal voice, but how they use that voice becomes more important.

As for party alliances, we already have that, and the lack of equal say means the minority controls the majority.


It ensures that the people doing those bureaucratic jobs aren't in it for the money. And we already have a bureaucracy full of idiots who can't get jobs in the private sector. Except for those few at the top who are in it for the money.


Get rid of state boundaries entirely. They serve no purpose apart from organising sporting teams. Keep local councils to handle government on the local level. But categorising all those into large groups, each with its own extra government, is simply a waste of resources.


I'm not adding anything negative to working for government, apart from having their finances open to public scrutiny. As for pay levels, 1.5 times the average would appeal to every single person making an average wage or less.

As for who runs the CIA, there is such a thing as "qualifications". You still need to qualify for the task.

The prevention of 51% telling 49% to go to war only depends on how the parties are divided. In your system if the whole party thing becomes all screwed up(as is theoretically possible) then 20% of the population could effectively drive us into war. After all, we could have a lot of really small parties boss around a bunch of really big parties. Also, the latter thing about 2nd class citizens is not protected by any measure at all. One thing is that 99% of the people will control enough of the government to get their will pushed through in any system especially since 99% of the people will control the majority of all parties. Your system guarantees nothing and is effectively a more impotent, and bastardized version of the archaic electoral college. It really just creates a weird system, also there are problems in that the party system you outline will create fierce party loyalty and as such will create problems with division and perhaps bribery by larger parties/more powerful parties in order to expand this power. A great thing about the modern system is that idiots are not involved and don't care, if they did then the groupthink of all of them would drive us off of some edge.

Well, should we also cut off their sexual organs to prevent them from having sex scandals? The driving motive of most people is self-interest, self-interest is an important part of our economy and to deny its influence would be to weaken the talent pool of the bureacracy. Nobody with talent would stay with a difficult job like a high-up bureacratic job, especially if they could get 100 times their salary in some other job, only an idiot would stick around if given the 2 options. Unless we have a special breed of human that physically lacks self-interest, this system will only cause our government to lose talent.

No, sporting teams is really not a use at all as states will have 2 have the same team or no team at all. States are important for the organization of resources. The US is massive and each state is the size of a european nation. I don't think the federal government could effectively manage all of that without division of land into more manageable groups. It is not a waste of resources but rather is probably a way to make resource use more efficient because it is easier to manage a state's roads and education than it is to coordinate a nation's roads and education, if people did not really want a state government then they would elect a libertarian as their governor or something anyway.

Well, the thing is that average would not be a good measure. There are perks and benefits, there are jobs that don't require above average skills, there is the fact that people need to be incentized to get more important jobs and not stick with easier lower level work, there is the fact that nobody here has really calculated an average wage to know what it would look like. I may have read "minimum wage" instead of average , however, that does not change how much I vehemently think that such a system is senseless. It makes almost no economic sense to have a flat wage system for a variety of jobs with different qualifications and difficulties. Also, having your finances scrutinized is a massive disincentive for anyone. I do not want anyone knowing my finances except for me and I think that many people would feel the same way given how much we as a people have a desire for privacy. Open knowledge of finances leaves people more open to crime as people will know how much money somebody has and want it and it is a major attack on somebody's privacy. People do not share the amount of money in their account unless they are boastful, stupid or both or if they have none anyway.

Also, the CIA thing is held back by the fact that anyone who could get a CIA top position could also probably be a CEO and make 100s of thousands of dollars. Given the choice I would think that most people would pick the job as CEO. This leaves us with a problem of being left with a talent pool that consists of mostly low talent as high talent would leave at the drop of a hat. This means that qualifications may need to be lowered to deal with the lack of demand for the job. Such rules seem like chains on a government for it to do what is necessary.

It certainly isn't the non-existant government. I see people, trucks and tools building those things. The government is nowhere to be seen.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned something about requiring 75% agreement for acts to be passed in parliament. Yep, I just checked, I did say that. 75% within a month, or it goes to a plebiscite.

Unlike the USA's electoral college, it doesn't involve a few rich people sitting in the top jobs for years and screwing everyone over. Each party representative should be elected every year by his own party. In the idea presented, you'd have up to 300 annually elected representatives who can only put forth in parliament things agreed upon by at least 75% of the citizens they represent.


What talent pool of bureaucracy? We've alerady got idiots in the bureaucracy. Go down to the local social services bureau or some such place and try having a conversation with them. And they don't need to lack self-interest. 1.5 times the average wage is enough to satisfy self-interest.


Geographical size is irrelevant. Western Australia is bigger than Texas, yet only has three people and a lost dog in it. And for some silly reason the entire government structure is duplicated over there, absorbing tax dollars. Management systems tend to be scalable, so the number of people under the control of any such system is also irrelevant. You don't need 50 states, 50 different laws, 50 different rules, 50 different sets of managers. Why not have one rule for everyone? Why not have one system for everyone? Why not reduce overheads, reduce the loss of tax dollars, and have one guy shuffling those papers instead of 50?


The average wage in Australia is KNOWN. Doesn't your country keep such statistics? As for different jobs in the bureaucracy requiring different qualifications and having different difficulties, every job I've ever heard of in the bureaucracy involves paperwork. The paper-shufflers only need to be trained in dealing with their specific type of paperwork. Driving permit people need to know the driving permit forms. Parking permit people need to know the parking permit forms.

As for having their finances open to public scrutiny, it's a choice people would be free to make. Get a nice easy job paying 1.5 times the average wage, more than most people are getting, and all you have to do is endure people checking your bank balance online. There are a heck of a lot of poor people out there who, I think, would leap at the opportunity.


If people want to go into the private sector instead, they will. They do now. People are already leaving such jobs for private sector roles. So how would lowering the pay rate change things? If anything, all it would do is prompt more people to leave, thus lowering their value to the private sector, thereby balancing out the flow of talent from one sector to the other. Market forces would stabilise the issue.

Today's problems are yesterday's solutions.

the fault in democracy:


the existance of religion: religion sets out to discourage logic and a scientific approach to anything. so as such, a government elected by a people of religion goes against logic and follows the programmed morality of those people.

people are lazy and wallow in ignorance: without an informed voting public, democracy will surely fail because the people are voting on false premises and are therefore driving the government in the general wrong direction.