A New Form of Democracy
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I have an idea, a vision for a new form of democracy. Taking inspiration from meritocracy and combining simple pluralist democratic ideals with it, I believe that we can make a powerful combination. In brief, it would work like this:
The government ought to be split into many bureaucratic-styled branches that focus on a specific issue only – such as the Commission of Economics or the Commission of Agriculture. Depending on one's job, people may vote for precisely one assigned commission: An economist may vote only for the commissioners of Economics, and teachers may vote for those of education. There will also be one head commissioning group everyone votes for, whose task is to appropriate funds and to assign issues to a branch – or branches should it be needed.
Pro: This form of government is better than other currently used ones.
Con: No, another form of government is more effective.
The burden of proof lies on both people. Me to affirm my form of democracy, con to affirm another form of government.
“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” - Abraham Lincoln
“Government systems suffer from two weaknesses. They are complex. And they are slow. We need to change this. Our systems need to be made sharp, effective, fast and flexible...." - Narendra Modi
"The balance of power is the scale of peace." - Thomas Paine
- The potential of gridlock in the American system. All people's voices are put in one room together, each voicing different concerns. What do we get? A school lunchroom. A cacophony of noise where all concerns, ideas, grievances, rebuttals, plans, are meshed together, producing nothing in the end – even if each idea, grievance, plan, etc. were equally necessary to address. However, in this new philosophy, the Commission of Education is dedicated specifically to talking about education. With this, things can flow through germanely with less turbulence and distortion.
- The potential of corruption in non-Democracies. Should a corrupt official be given power, there is no safety break of voting them out. They can distort the way of the land so that it only favors more corrupt politicians. It can very easily get out of control, and the only way to effectively remove all corruption is with a complete overturning of the government.
- The abhorrent pace of Direct Democracy. A Direct Democracy works in small scales. Say a small group of 12 people are working on a project, or the first civilization ever has been set up with 50 people. However, once the population starts getting into the 100,000's, or even millions, it's simply impossible to have everyone's voice be surveyed on every small decision. That's why every government now uses representatives to represent the decisions of the people.
- My political philosophy
- Comparing my philosophy to more popular philosophies of today
- Examining how my philosophy can be applied
- [Next round ]Contrasting con philosophy to pro philosophy. [Next round]
- All industries have their own committee that develops laws that influence their own industry?
- If there is an electorate, that means not every citizen is directly voting for their respective rep., Correct?
- How does electorate have the best knowledge of any given candidate?
- Are we considering how we are to learn about a given politician?
- How are politicians chosen again?
- As we consider your benefits. How will these committees interact with each other for macro economics? What if they have conflicting decisions or laws?