Thread: Elaborative Democracy

There are two kinds of democracies in the world at present: the parliamentary, where the president is merely head of state and all decisions are taken by Parliament, and the Presidential system, where the President is not just a head of state but in charge of the nation.

Is it possible for a third form of democracy to exist?

Elaborative democracy, as I believe it is called, is a form of democracy where people don't elect representatives but instead rule directly. This could be done by voting on issues that are deemed important by the people directly, instead of representatives voting on their behalf. Likewise, each citizen may form bills and place them in rthe legislature.

However, such a form of democracy is not possible, as is claimed, for two main reasons:
1) That it would delay decision-making as every person would have to be asked.
2) That people might not know anhything about the bill to be passed.
3) There are immense distances between all people and it is impossible to bridge that distance in order for them to communicate.

However, with the relatively recent innovation of the internet and communication devfices like mobile phones, the third problem can be easily bridged.

The first problem assumes that it is compulsory for everyone to vote. In fact, this doesn't have to be so. People who want to vote can, while others may choose not to. This could use the Internet in much the same way it is being used: people canchoose to vote or not in a poll. As long as the issue achieves a majority among those who vote, a bill can be passed, Likewise, it can also be repealed by the majority.

The second problem depends on the education of people, and can only be addressed by education, so let's leave that for now.

However, this form of democracy has the added advantage of being able to prevent corruption.

My question to you is this: do you think elaborative democracy is a viable or feasible form of governance in the 21st century?

Liongold

Our current Constitutional Democracy is complete in itself and does not need any other substitution.

It does need one very important correction and that is to eliminate the
CORRUPTIVE influence of the wealthy individuals that buy our politicians with their dollars during the elections and in between.
As a result, instead of having a CD, we have a 'dollar republic!

The only way we can restore our CD is with the 'Public Financing of Our Elections
The electoral process is a Government function only and only poblic monies should be used..

So by banning the influence dollars would make the politicians accountable to the citizen issues only rather than serving the special interests.

MY Brand of Socialism is the ultimate government because it would comply with the C'N and even substitute as a religion since the C'N outlaws the self serving people and the discrimination the OT promotes.

Use 'Search' and Cosmo as the author. Thank you.

Cosmo

I think you'll find that I am not an American. I am, in fact, Indian, a country where democracy has not managed to help our people very much. One-third of the world's poor, according to the UNO, now live in our states.

Nor has Pakistan, a constitutionally democratic society, seen much improvement over the past decades. Thailand, democratically, and Japan have had several different governments in the last few years, none of whom have been decisive enough to stay in power.

Elaborative democracy could help the people by handing over power to the masses, instead of depending perenially upon the individual. Policies that could help the poor can be passed by the poor themselves, and contested just as much by the rich. Newspaper and media can help vastly differentsegments of society communicate and function properly as a democracy.

Cosmo, I fail to understand what you want to say. Where did socialism emerge from? I'm just discussing if elaborative democracy could be a viable form of government, not if constitutions are complete. However, I'm interested in what you're saying. Perhaps you could PM me your idea? I'd like to read it.

Yeah, it's good. But does anybody give a damn to progress democracy these days?

Internet, naturally. Moreover I reckon we've been good-to-go since telegraph and widespread use of radio. The argument that internet is too frail I think is silly since government itself (taxes, hospitals, even traffic lights) now depends on internet. Heck, the internet was first conceived by military, to survive destruction of traditional communications. And it's hardly elitist, compared to the insular old boys networks our lawmakers hail from or at least shake hands with. Security/integrity is not a problem, as foolproof transmission protocols are easily established and especially robust when kept open source transparent and accountable. Compared to earlier installations (revolutions), this is too easy. We could phase it in.

Alas we're complacent with the old ways, and scared of change.