Thomas:
I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to
propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one
assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making
decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman,
businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having
opinions and making decisions.
I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National
Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of
the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term.
The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the
individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The
second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required
by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as
whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the
standing committees.
This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the
dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific
cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian
and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by
all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from
office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in
which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could
participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for
a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced
elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small
increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of
parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position.
This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for
re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery
that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender,
ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though
some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has
not proven to be superior.
If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent
citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least
possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a
particular agenda.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: real-life example
>At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed
>>>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent
ones.
>>>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic,
>>>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited
tenure.
>>
>>Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best
>>skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and
xperience --
>>not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea.
>>
>>Jay
>
>Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A
>broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a
>DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be
>more likely to make a "stupid" choice.
>
>But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability
>of the leader".
>
>In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not
>accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every
>4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick
>the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally
>UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also!
>
>Hence the concept of Direct Democracy:
>" a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can
>directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws"
>
>Colin Stark
>Vice-President
>Canadians for Direct Democracy
>Vancouver, B.C.
>http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
>
