Instigator / Pro
0
1493
rating
6
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#4898

A New Form of Democracy

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

hey-yo
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1493
rating
23
debates
60.87%
won
Description

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.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Many thanks to Hey-yo for taking up this debate, and I hope we can both shape this debate bare many fruits.

First for clarification, this debate is specifically about the philosophy of this form of government. It is not about me trying to set up a government with every little detail and logistical consideration that is based on this idea.
That being said, I will most likely try to construct a bare bones government off of this philosophy since I would imagine it'd easier for both me and con to hinge our arguments around it.

        This form of governing has a cornucopia of benefits. Here are three main benefits as an appetizer:

An Informed Electorate is an Enlightened Government
The electorate will be much better informed on what they are voting on. This is accomplished in three ways:
1. It helps the message of a politician be far more concise and straight-forward. Let's assume that scientists, doctors, mathematicians, and all the sort is grouped to vote for the same commission – we'll call it the Commission of Science and Medications. Since they are electing commissioners that are constrained to a very straightforward agenda – being sciences and medications – confusion on what a politician plans to do will be much more avoidable. This directly attacks misinformation and misinterpretation, which in coming years has shown to have detrimental effects on governments.
2. The electorate is by nature more knowledgeable about what the politician is talking about. This is simple fact. A politician running for the Commission of Sciences and Medications is being voted on by people who have devoted their lives to understanding Sciences and/or Medications. Therefore, it would be exceedingly difficult for a mal-intending politician to spread false information. If a bad actor were running for the Commission of Science and Medications, they would most likely find it exceedingly difficult to convince their electorate of scientists that climate change isn't real than they would when trying to convince the general public.
3. While the American political system has six people that a person can vote on (State/Federal=4 congressional representatives, Governor, President), this system could have four people to vote on (State/Federal=2 Administrative commissioners, 2 personalized commissioners). This greatly reduces the amount of information that people need to deal with. In fact, six is far too time consuming that most people don't even bother voting for (let alone researching about) their state congressmen. By doing that, they're reducing the amount of information they must consume from six people down to four people, as this alternate offers. Zooming out to highlight this problem, in the British parliament, there are 650 federal members that each vote on policy representing everyone's voice. In this new philosophy however, there would only be 22 federal commissioners (or less even depending on the government) that vote on policy representing the individual's voice. In response to the idea that there would be tons of politicians with all of the commissions, let's do the math. 650 (British members of parliament) - 11 (Administrative Commission)= 639... 639/11(Per commission)= 58.09. Therefore it would take just shy of 60 commissions in this philosophy to meet the size of the British parliament! In complete guesswork, we would probably have half or even less than that in this system. Overall, much less information that could confuse a person.

“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
The quote speaks only the truth, and we can expedite this process by having an electorate composed of those who already have been brought the facts.

        Main benefit two:
With Haste, a Government is Most Decisive
Since there are smaller groups of people working on one issue – who all know much about the same issue – policy would be made more swiftly. 
This too is simply the truth. It is easier to move policy through a council of say 11 people than it is to plod policy through a party of 545 people (435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president, and 9 Supreme Court justices). This is especially true if the 11 people are all experts at understanding in specific the policies that they are voting on, while in the American government, 50 or even 99% of the people voting on the issue don't fully understand what they're voting for.

“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
Should the strings that chart the path for forging policy be unraveled from an intertwining ball of yarn to fine threads, a substantially more flexible government is the result.

        Main benefit three:
Limiting a Government's Individual Powers Strengthens a Government's Overall Power
1. This philosophy would aid in the balance of power since each commission is restricted to a specific set of issues to control.
All commissions will have their specific role, and their power cannot extend beyond it. The Commission of Retail Labor Practices – This will include cashiers, servers, and even restaurant owners – will be able to decide what is and isn't allowed in the common retail workplace, but that's it. They won't have the power to sway the economy, nor will they have the power to ban books or websites that they don't like.
2. Even the head commission does not have as much power as it would seem.
For the head commission, we will need some strong safety breaks on them since they control two potentially completely overpowering powers. After all, it would be logical that this commission shows heavy biases toward the commission with the largest electorate, therefore funding them disproportionately and potentially even assigning them issues that they certainly should have no reign over. To combat this, we can value all commissions equally in a movement for impeachment. With this, one would find it much harder to pick on the little guys. Say it takes only 2/5ths of the commissions to impeach an administrative official. With a relatively low bar to impeach, it would certainly keep the Administrative Commission on best behavior.

"The balance of power is the scale of peace." - Thomas Paine

Now, I will go on the offensive to point out flaws in some other governments which can be solved with this philosophy:

  • 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.
As for my prototypical government, I have already been introducing things throughout my argument that would be present in my government – such as 11 commissioners per commission and 2/5ths vote to impeach an administrative commissioner.
Here are some add-on's that I will put into this form of government as I wrap up my intro:
- Unemployed people. They will still be able to vote for the Administrative Commission, however, they will be barred from voting in other commissions.
- People with multiple jobs. The one they have more education in will be in use, or if that is not possible, the one they had longer. In the rare scenario that they get the jobs at the same second, they will be randomly chosen. They will be chosen randomly so that people can't exploit it by having economics as a side gig even though they're a teacher, and they choose to be able to vote in economics for whatever bad intentions. I'd imagine that if someone managed to get both jobs approved at the same time, they would be up to some shady things.
- Voting will be swapped to rank-choice voting because it's mathematically better.
- Local governments will follow the same principle. Federal law has rule over local law, however, local commissions can impeach their related federal commission if 2/3rds of the local commissions agree (Like if the board of education from New York, California, Utah, etc. voted to impeach a commissioner from the Federal Commission of Education).
- The country will be divided into 11 districts (like the states of the USA). Each district appoints one of the commissioners of the federal commission.
- The districts will be further divided into 11 subdistricts that make up the local commission of that district.
- The subdistricts will be redrawn to match population sizes every 10 years.
- To avoid gerrymandering with the above statement, a computer will generate the maps with two simple rules: Make each district as close to a square as possible, and the largest district by population may be 10% more populous than the smallest district by population (55%-45%, this should help make the squares more square).


Sources:








Con
#2
Hey thanks for new debate and different topic.  Good luck to pro and the audience.  

Round 1 contents:
  1. Definitions
  2. My political philosophy 
  3. Comparing my philosophy to more popular philosophies of today
  4. Examining how my philosophy can be applied
  5. [Next round ]Contrasting con philosophy to pro philosophy. [Next round]
1. Definitions & how I use them.

Govt. System - also political system. The institution of govt. 

Branch of philosophy that is theoretical

Govt. action - an action or law that a government performs. 


. My political philosophy. 
   Philosophy in it self is very fluid. Similar to martial arts, there are parts that can be seen in 2 competing systems. Ex: knee strikes in karate can be seen and utilized more often in muy thai. The influence govt. has over its economy may be seen in capitalism, but is utilized more in communism. Therefore the most important parts to my political philosophy are:  

A. Be as water (youtube link) was popularized by Bruce Lee. This ideal is to never allow oneself to settle or accept only 1 thing. In martial arts, this means be open to learn from all systems instead of narrowing one's mind to a single system. Bruce Lee spoke on the importance of learning with other martial art systems, not to exclude ourselves from them. Political science and applying govt. systems needs to be the same way. Open and fluid to many systems to find the right fit for the populace. 


B. Transparency
Two ways to maintain transparency. 
First is to maintain short and long term goals; that are public & well known.  This practice follows educational ideal brought to us by Simon Sinek and his examining u.s. policy on war using game theory

In summary, Simon takes what govt. participates in (i.e. war), applies game theory to determine choices, goals, participants, etc. In doing so we can see that a country's goals helps develop stability and unity through knowledge. 

Second, reduce the amount of secrets. Although we may agree some secrets are necessary, we should maintain that quantity to the smallest possible. If some actions require secrecy then we can navigate risk vs.  reward, aligned with above goal system, to prevent secrecy - abstaining from that action. 

We may also have a law or obligation that requires a secret action to be made public within a short time period. 

Third, having an open (public) process to determine govt. actions that can be identified and explained in simple ways. Govt. systems should be explainable. How govt. operate should be explainable.  

Explaining why comes from experience/practice and research.  We research the materials to implement in effort to know all possible affects. Then put findings in practice around the country (like a business trying experimental services/products in select regions i.e. a new hamburger). 

C. Balance of power BY:
I Seek competition 
II  Eliminate competition. 
This applies to the political system only. Many govt.'s have tried to balance power between individuals and groups. We have a senate, house of representatives, etc. Every political group tries to control as much as possible to get power.  This is a game and the game is competition.  Eliminate competition, then there will be balance.  

D. Work smart first, then hard. 
Maintain our development based on sciences and innovations. Then utilize the "leather neck tough" mentality to get the job done to the highest quality. Why? 

Because working smart means efficiency. Using the least required resources with the least amount of impact on economy or nature. 

2. Comparing my philosophy. 
Govts. systems and political philosophies used today include (but not limited to) liberalism,  capitalismconservatism,  socialism, and more

These "ism's" (as I call it) guide laws and policies to fit an ideal. Although some share similar principals, they project a dangerous one-ness in saying only one "ism" should be used to build a govt. 

This is dangerous because it prevents flexibility in adapting to changing environments. Today's governments have recognized this danger, and so we see little to no country using these philosophies in their entirety.  

America uses socialist programs with capitalist policies.  China uses capitalist policies with communist agendas. 

Countries have developed into socialist democracies and democratic republics. Countries that have succeeded in securing a strong economy, safety for citizens, and over all growth have implemented several practices from multiple "isms." 

Therefore I introduce "political waterism. " The political philosophy we can all vote for. 

A philosophy to allow systems to adapt by using more than just one "ism."


4.  How my philosophy can be applied?  
There are many ways that the current u.s. govt., institution or whom ever may apply my above philosophy. I will promote the following means as 1 example. 

A. Having govt. separated into 3 groups with 4 sub groups in each. Each group would be identified as the following. 

I - Federal 
+ legislature
+ Law enforcement/military
+ utilities
+ economics 

II - regional/local
+ legislature
+ Law enforcement/military
+ utilities/infrastructure 
+ economics (i.e. resources & money)


III - advisory/judicial
+ 9 Judges known as prince/princess to oversee regional legislature and law enforcement - meet together for federal decisions - decided upon by expertise & voting
+ 9 council members for utilities/infrastructure - decided upon by professional expertise & voted for
+ 9 chamber members for economics  - decided upon by expertise & voting
9 war chiefs for war council - decided upon by voting & rank. 

B. In summary, words that best describe how my philosophy is applied is as follows: 

Meritocracy/Technocracy in a Constitutional Oligarchy 
 
This section (4) may be covered more in following rounds as needed. 


5.  Comparing pro & con philosophies.  
I am dedicating round 1 to my philosophy to ease everyone's reading and have a set place for pro and con political philosophy. That way we can all just look at round 1 if we need to re-examine anything.  
[Next round

I will ask Pro the following questions for clarity:

  1. All industries have their own committee that develops laws that influence their own industry? 
  2. If there is an electorate, that means not every citizen is directly voting for their respective rep., Correct?
  3. How does electorate have the best knowledge of any given candidate?
  4. Are we considering how we are to learn about a given politician?
  5. How are politicians chosen again? 
  6. As we consider your benefits. How will these committees interact with each other for macro economics? What if they have conflicting decisions or laws? 




Round 2
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Con
#4
Giving pro chance to address questions. 
Extend. 
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Con
#6
Extend. 
Round 4
Pro
#7
Forfeited
Con
#8
Extend
Round 5
Pro
#9
Forfeited
Con
#10
Close dis debate.