For some of you who may not know by now Socialism and Capitalism are not perfect ideas. For instance an extreme version of either will result in severe poverty and centralization of political power. The richer and powerful one man gets the poorer the other. Moderate socialism appears to be the alright except for the centralization of power and a mundane economy. To counter this problem I am proposing a government system where every official including the president is elected randomly. We can start a course in colleges called "leadership", where all the day-day activities of the country is thought. Admission is opened to everyone, and graduates are eligible for positions. Randomly electing government officials decentralizes power and apprehends personal goals while promoting what exactly the "people" want. Bush wouldn't have gone to war if he was randomly elected. And maybe when we look at every fellow human being as a potential leader we may treat them better. This is true democracy in a silver platter and your mum would be proud. A political system of such in a moderate capitalist system
(I mean no single person with more than 1 billion in assets) is the best socio-political encapture. We can waste our time by going to the ballots every four years knowing that those who are in power and who will be are from the same circle or create a better world for our children.

For some of you who may not know by now......a favorite phrase of the self-appointed elite when addressing the great unwashed, i.e., others. There's nothing like talking down to people to impress them with all your skills and knowledge.

The richer and [more] powerful one man gets[,] the poorer the other [becomes].You not only fail English grammar, you fail economics. Life is not a zero-sum game.

We can start a course in colleges called "leadership", where all [of] the [day-to-day] activities of the country [are] thought [out]. Admission [will be] opened [for] everyone, and graduates [will be] eligible for positions....so building an elite class of college druggies is required to keep things "correct" and out of the hands of the obviously incompetent ordinary citizens.

Bush wouldn't have gone to war if he was randomly elected....and, of course, you can demonstrate this by use of your superior intellect and reasoning ability.

Chatha, you're young, inexperienced, and full of crap. And you didn't even explain what a "random election" is.

my nit to pick (I'll leave the rest): colleges? So people that don't or can't go arn't eligable?

I am sorry mary if I upset you. I was only writing as though I was speaking, I am very expressive when I write. I don't know what I have done wrong but I did not mean to sound pretentious, I am always opened to opinion. It appears you read minds or something. Anyway I see you call me names while you preach against pretentious people. I didn't go to study english in college and language is for communications anyway, so as long as you get my idea I see no reason why we have a problem. I can tell you are a nationalist of some sort obviously trying to discredit me or something. According to you people can get richer while others also get richer, and not have inflation in the mix.My apologies.

if your idea is that everyone should be trained for leadership and then a leader should be randomly selected then it is a very stupid idea.

Obviously not everybody, only those interested. This is the only way to decentralize power. We still live in a monarchial society today, just that the royal family is extended. All those that will be president tomorrow are already known by some and come from the same circle. But why can't we teach what's going on in the white house at colleges so that people like you and me can have a chance at being leaders. That way everyone knows whats really going on with the country, everything is in the open air. What's wrong with random selection, no one said politics was about who we liked, but who has the potentials.This is true democracy and if I am wrong then Democracy is wrong as well. Hence we might as well stop fooling ourselves, stop voting, and just let the powers that be run the show.

"For some of you who may not know by now" some people are not fit to be leaders.

Obviously not everybody, only those interested. This is the only way to decentralize power. We still live in a monarchial society today, just that the royal family is extended. All those that will be president tomorrow are already known by some and come from the same circle. But why can't we teach what's going on in the white house at colleges so that people like you and me can have a chance at being leaders. That way everyone knows whats really going on with the country, everything is in the open air. This is true democracy and if I am wrong then Democracy is wrong as well. Hence we might as well stop fooling ourselves, stop voting as well, and just let the powers that be run the show.


so are you saying that they should teach politics at university?or that they should have a course in how to be a president?i think i may be getting the wrong end of your stick

How about calling it "national leadership". God knows I would employ anyone with such a diploma if I were a man of business-just a thought. Sorry if I sound unrealistic, I always thought politics was boring anyway

how long would they be in office for?would you reject anyone because of their political views?if not then you could end up with a nazi for a term then communist for another term,how would the economy cope?if you were going to reject people on the basis of political views,who would make the judgement?

Chatha,

In America, if someone is interested in the political process, they study civics and history in elementary and high school, and then perhaps go on to a Political Science major in college. So it is already being taught in schools and universities.

If they are really interested, they find jobs in political campaigns or on the staffs of elected officials. And if they are really, really dedicated, they might even run for office. It's a culling process.

Then potential candidates are put through primary campaigns, another culling process. If a candidate survives that test, he has to convince the people of his political positions in a campaign in a general election. And if he wins, the people will decide if he's good enough to continue next election cycle. In theory, it can't get any better than that.

As to political dynasties, the children of successful politicians are more exposed to the political side of life than other children. It's natural that they would gravitate into the political mainstream, and more likely that they would follow in the steps of their parent. They certainly don't "inherit" anything.

Sure, bad things happen. Crooked politicians buy votes or win by other means. I imagine that in your scenario, a "graduate" could get there because he cheated on the final exam. People aren't perfect. But like Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest."

I accept your apology, and in return, I apologize if I came down a little hard on you. But I will add that if you want to sell your ideas and convince others that you have something worth listening to, you do have to learn to communicate. Language, written or spoken, is what we're all about.

And the name is MARV as in Marvin............:D

What is the definition of "randomly elected"? And how does the author of this thread justify the existence and relevance of either in regard to a system administered by "randomly elected" government officials?

Those questions temporarily aside, we must realize that any seriously Socialistic system depends heavily upon the fruits and labor of Capitalism, in some form, even if the major Capitalist so participating is the state itself (the extreme example being communism). Social systems, no matter how well intentioned or "fair" still need to pay the bills. Therefore, a socialist state must obtain revenue by either direct participation in Capitalism (Saudi Arabia sells its gift of crude oil on the open market at the going price), or by taxes on goods, services, or income (The U.S.’s source). Capitalism is not really a form of government but socialism is heavily involved in the main purpose of government --looking out for the well being of its citizens. Strict capitalism depends upon only market forces which naturally are subject to wide fluctuations. It is these extremes in which people perceive the “evil” of capitalism. But one of government’s legitimate functions is to regulate capitalism with the goal of protecting its citizens from these damaging extremes, any other motive renders governmental intent suspect. The good intent of socialism ultimately places it in conflict with the very capitalistic forces it depends upon to fund such noble intents.

But some more questions, given Chatha’s statement:

“Randomly electing government officials decentralizes power and apprehends personal goals while promoting what exactly the "people" want. Bush wouldn't have gone to war if he was randomly elected.”

One of the most famous political debates in U.S. history involved a highly centralized Hamiltonian government model vs. the Jeffersonian standard of de-centralization that proposes most of governmental power resting in the individual states, that is, the debate involving the adoption of our present U.S. Constitution which saw a victory for the former—centralization is not always bad, but what is the advantage of “random elections”?

I eagerly await Chatha’s definition and reply.

JM

Random elections means no political rallies or promotion. Candidates are drawn and appointed to certain positions by a random computer generated process. I guess the main purpose is to decentralize power and give it to the people. It may also be helpful if we look at other people as possible leaders.

why dont you liquidise all elected officals assests and put them into the treasury. Then if the country does well the officals get there money back + payment. If they do a BAD job then they lose everything

Random elections mean no political rallies or promotion. Candidates are drawn and appointed to certain positions by a random computer generated process. I guess the main purpose is to decentralize power and give it to the people. It may also be helpful if we look at other people as possible leaders.

--Chatha

This is not an election it is a lottery. As such, it leaves something extremely important (i.e. a citizen's informed choice) hostage to pure chance and effectively abdicates the moral position of free will. Why would anyone fight and die for the privilege of choosing their leader by a mere roll of the dice? At Least with a strong leader, such as Hannibal or even Hitler one knows the devil he has been dealt. Additionally, how would a leader, such as G.W. Bush, be prevented from starting (or lobbying against) a war merely by way of the method of his/her election? This would, more likely, be determined by his job description and terms of employment, that is, the constitutionally defined powers of his office.

Further, this method removes rather than gives "power to the people" and surrenders such power to the caprice of the chaotic universe.

JM

The fight and die you are talking about is what we are trying to eliminate. We want to eliminate biased motives as well. Upon election by lottery picks we can then seek a national approval rating, if more than 50% approve, with adequate background check, then he sits in office. This method does give power to the people, in fact power rests with the people. This way my children can go to school, study how to lead the country and maybe be elected. As opposed to bribing and fabricating my way through the process, only to be out manuevered by the wealthy few. Also If the streets were paved with graduates of such program, it wouldn't be bad to have such experts around.Anybody randomely elected would not so much have the odacity to wage war against other states without the people's consent, not based on what his father did not finish. Today we have aristocracy, power by the rich. As far as I know more than 90 % of people are poor, so how is this power resting to the people. Please explain? Decentralizing power is the beginning of democracy.If this is not democracy, call me demonstrating-craziness.

This is a marvelous forum. Additionally, Catha is to be commended in the swiftness of his/her response. However, I must defer to Catha towards myself and beg for the ability to postpone our discourse until a more opportune time, my request emanates from only an individual who needs some sleep. With all due respect I bid you good night.

JM

Then potential candidates are put through primary campaigns, another culling process. If a candidate survives that test, he has to convince the people of his political positions in a campaign in a general election. And if he wins, the people will decide if he's good enough to continue next election cycle. In theory, it can't get any better than that.
I'm finishing up my mandatory Gov course for highschool, and I've learned a lot more than I thought I would. Other than the democratic model you described, America also has oligarchical, meritocratic and democratic parts of government to try and prevent the shortcomings of government.

America is by no means a democracy. Only our president is directly elected, all the senators and House people are elected by minority populations. Supreme court justices are appointed (so they don't have to worry about party politics when they interpret constitution law), and civil servants are highered based on their abilities.
States are allowed to pass popular legislature through referenda and initiatives, which are forms of direct democracy. All these pieces assemble to try and prevent the dangers of mob rule, corporate rule, oligarchy, juntas and so forth. It's really quite marvelous.

How do random elections work?
Something like this?
First you go to college to learn about how government works, then you enter an applicant pool. Applicants are randomly selected, then voted upon. A 50% +1 margin is required to make it to office.

Wouldn't this disenfranchise huge amounts of people by diallowing them to choose who could best represent them?

I believe anybody can rule any state and govern any body of people. In fact we humans are so diverse that you can also find a little bit of a leader in everybody. If we really want power to rest with the people then we cannot also establish ruling or electoral councils, everybody has to be elected by a lottery. The power of randomness is not to be overlooked, there is a lot of organization in randomeness sometimes. Some people find the idea foreign, but in this day and age we still practice aristocracy, I can't blame anybody. I think the day to day activities at the so called white house can be downloaded to schools thanks to computers, and be taught there. Graduates will obviously be science oriented as well, pretty much the best of the best, close to being an engineer or something as far as society is concerned. Upon graduation, we take a batch of grads and elect them randomly as in a lottery. Elected officials will obviously face an approval test by the public, this poll could be done by the internet or something. Any body falls short of 50% and another candidate is elected at random, and so on for three times, when we have no choice but to accept he or she. But what am I saying I live in the year 2005, this is never going to happen, aristocracy rules!

" All men are born equal..."

instead of instituting that model on a national scale, how about trying it on something less important than govenrment office?

SOCIALISTIC CAPITALISM?

Uncompatible! Socialism says that business is controlled by the gov, therefore no competition for anything, just what the gov. decides. That's the opposite of capitalism.

Chatha, let me finish your quote

All men are born equal, but everything they do from that point on change it.

Chatha, you miss one very important point... the VAST majority of the earth's people are stupid morons.

In the history of the universe, I highly doubt any two men have been born equal.

The cure to pure capitalism is not socialism. The strength of capitalism is competition between capitalists. When capitalists compete it forces them to make the products better for less money. We as consumers get better goods and pay less for them. Competition makes us all stronger and better. The problem with socialism is it takes away competition. There is no need to make products better. There is no need for people to work harder. It kills people's natural desire to excel. It only breeds and rewards mediocrity. This causes stagnation and atrophy. Which is why socialist economies never succeed?

Chatha, you miss one very important point... the VAST majority of the earth's people are stupid morons.

In the history of the universe, I highly doubt any two men have been born equal.


Yes I have to agree! All humans are "equal" in terms of basic human rights, but in terms of their ability to lead others or comprehend complex social policies, they are vastly different. As they are different in many other ways.

There are so many problems with the random selection concept I don't know where to begin. It is hopelessly idealistic, and all the difficulties flow from there. In very much the same way that radical capitalist or socialist ideologies have little practical value, this is strictly a fantasy.

Yes I have to agree! All humans are "equal" in terms of basic human rights, but in terms of their ability to lead others or comprehend complex social policies, they are vastly different. As they are different in many other ways.

There are so many problems with the random selection concept I don't know where to begin. It is hopelessly idealistic, and all the difficulties flow from there. In very much the same way that radical capitalist or socialist ideologies have little practical value, this is strictly a fantasy.


Well, I'd argue the one and only reason true capitalism wouldn't work, is the idiot masses who can' cut it would organize an start a revolution, because fairness simply isn't 'good' for them. The socialist sprinkles in all capitalist societies are necessary because of that; to soothe the inferior, basically.

That's how the pure socialism problem manifests, too.. no way in hell these same lower-beings are going to work an ounce mroe than they absolutely have to.

Take away flawed human nature, though, and even stupid communism works.

Thanks for the input. Well I was emphaszing on political power not economics persay. Even I know that competition is good, but for who really? How good can you actually make a product, are you not supposed to make it the best you can in the first place. I see competition as advertisement. Essentially competition drives false and unecessary producs, but such is the nature of a capitalist/greedy system anyway; you cannot have it without a consumer culture. Also, in the real world competition usually promotes monopoly, just try and think of an industry that has no lead producer and biggest market shareholder. Take Coke as an example, there is no way on earth you are ever going to surpass the corporation in productivity unless you do something really outrageous or illegal, and chances are they may hear about it before implemented if they don't buy you out. Nonetheless I think you cannot have a capitalists society and have democracy at the same time, more like aristocracy.


"the person who puts in the vote decides nothing"- Stalin

Obviously not everybody, only those interested.

Ok so Hitler, Lennin, Stalin, Mao, and many other crappy people wanted to be Leaders. So in theory they could be picked by your new system. Yay.

Ok so Hitler, Lennin, Stalin, Mao, and many other crappy people wanted to be Leaders. So in theory they could be picked by your new system. Yay.

"Crappy" is subjective... look at the positive effects Hitler and Mao had on their countries.

[Not that I like most of what hitler did. Mao I like.]