Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By danhanegan

Thread: An Idea for a Hierarchical Direct Democracy

  1. #1 An Idea for a Hierarchical Direct Democracy 
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Everything I say here is an opinion, which I am willing to change if I am given reason to.
    American government is an indirect democracy, in which people elect leaders. The main issue with this is the election process. People are influenced by things other than proposed policy, such as confidence and skill at argument. These two traits probably have something to do with the quality of a leader, but they also can bias people. People should elect the leader who will be the best leader, not necessarily the cooler one. There are many other problems with indirect democracies, so here's an idea for a direct democracy.
    Direct democracies are generally only used by smaller societies, because otherwise they would be hard to organize. My idea is to use a hierarchy to make direct democracies usuable by societies as large as the u.s.
    -The elected governmental population is divided into groups of a certain number. For example, 100. The non-elected population is not divided into those groups.
    -The non-elected population forms the bottom of the hierarchy. They meet at assemblies, organized by the town. The assemblies are meant to have an average of 100 people (by experimenting with where they happen and how frequently), although they are open to every non-elected person in the society. That way, people can present their ideas to a different audience if they think the first audience was prejudiced.
    -Members can run for election. Elected members are required to participate, although they might be paid a small amount. This would allow the poor to participate (didn't invent that, was used by Athens.)
    -In all levels of the hierarchy, members have a specific amount of time to present their ideas during each assembly. After they present an idea, the assembly votes on whether to move on to the next stage of judging their idea. If they vote to do so, members then present opinions, and ideas for changes which the assembly votes on. Once the idea has been perfected and discussed, the assembly votes on whether to pass the idea up to a higher level of the hierarchy.
    -In all levels of the hierarchy, members can run for election to advance to the next level of the hierarchy. The running officials are elected by all officials lower than the running member's level (but only certain groups, rather than all). This means that the highest level officials aren't involved in elections.
    -There are several groups at the highest level. The highest level is the level which actually approves laws/regulations. There are multiple groups, so if one group disagrees with the other, an assembly of all highest-level groups is held.
    -Officials have an indefinite term. Instead of being removed from office after a given time period, officials are both elected and de-elected. I don't know how the
    de-election process would work.
    One issue with this is lack of direction. With no single leader, there will likely be much conflict of ideas.


    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Absolutely not. Hierarchical systems like this have been used, since forever, in organisations like political parties or unions or say, the Catholic Church. Unions and many political parties have, by and large, abandoned them. Why? Because all you do is keep on concentrating power. It makes it easier and easier for more and more powerful groups to gain more and more power to make more and more important decisions affecting the rest of the society in question.

    It becomes a de facto aristocracy. More and more power entrenched in smaller and smaller groups. Not a starter.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    The current system arise naturally because people (person/human) have a limited capacity to do governing & normal job at the same time, and will rather have someone else to do the managerial responsibility while they do their own job. This is a form of specialization. Nobody in their right mind are able to, or has enough mental capacity to process all managerial information while doing a regular job.

    Of course...
    This is exploitable (ie: leading to dictator, tyranical management) but there's no other system because we couldn't do any better.

    Human are "stupid".

    Meaning...
    direct democracy is impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    The current system arise naturally because people (person/human) have a limited capacity to do governing & normal job at the same time, and will rather have someone else to do the managerial responsibility while they do their own job. This is a form of specialization. Nobody in their right mind are able to, or has enough mental capacity to process all managerial information while doing a regular job.

    Of course...
    This is exploitable (ie: leading to dictator, tyranical management) but there's no other system because we couldn't do any better.

    Human are "stupid".

    Meaning...
    direct democracy is impossible.
    I agree with most of your ideas, but I guess it isn't completely a direct democracy, since officials are elected.
    Non-elected people wouldn't have to participate, and if they did, maybe it could use the internet. Besides elections, only people who are interested in government would participate (probably.)
    Because humans are "stupid," most people don't objectively elect people. Electing people from a smaller group might help that issue, although now that I think about it, it would do the opposite.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Absolutely not. Hierarchical systems like this have been used, since forever, in organisations like political parties or unions or say, the Catholic Church. Unions and many political parties have, by and large, abandoned them. Why? Because all you do is keep on concentrating power. It makes it easier and easier for more and more powerful groups to gain more and more power to make more and more important decisions affecting the rest of the society in question.

    It becomes a de facto aristocracy. More and more power entrenched in smaller and smaller groups. Not a starter.
    I agree with what you say. Each group would always be the excact same size, although it would still cause certain groups to gain more power. That's an issue with our government, as well.
    The point of this is to make democracy somewhat more direct, but it doesn't seem to.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    I agree with most of your ideas, but I guess it isn't completely a direct democracy, since officials are elected.
    Non-elected people wouldn't have to participate, and if they did, maybe it could use the internet. Besides elections, only people who are interested in government would participate (probably.)
    Because humans are "stupid," most people don't objectively elect people. Electing people from a smaller group might help that issue, although now that I think about it, it would do the opposite.
    I think the current system is already heirarchical democracy: first you elect your friend as representative (to lobby your agenda) in a party. Then the party will elect a representative (to lobby their agenda) in the parliment. Then parliment will elect an officials (to lobby their agenda) to the president.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    I agree with most of your ideas, but I guess it isn't completely a direct democracy, since officials are elected.
    Non-elected people wouldn't have to participate, and if they did, maybe it could use the internet. Besides elections, only people who are interested in government would participate (probably.)
    Because humans are "stupid," most people don't objectively elect people. Electing people from a smaller group might help that issue, although now that I think about it, it would do the opposite.
    I think the current system is already heirarchical democracy: first you elect your friend as representative (to lobby your agenda) in a party. Then the party will elect a representative (to lobby their agenda) in the parliment. Then parliment will elect an officials (to lobby their agenda) to the president.
    The election process is hierarchical in our government. In this, ideas are generated by all levels, and passed up the hierarchy. Perhaps the lowest level should be the only idea generating level, and all other levels decide whether to use the ideas.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    I don't see the need for a hierarchy. I instead advocate a proxy system. All qualified voters can vote on bills before congress, and the majority of votes cast wins. People who do not want to cast their vote on a day to day basis may vest their vote in another qualified voter of their choice (the proxy). Proxies cast as many votes as have been vested to them. Some popular politicians will no doubt wind up with millions of proxies. But if they lose public confidence the voters can vest their proxy in someone else at any time or simply void the proxy and cast their own vote as they see fit. All this can be organized via the internet. In my opinion our form of "representative" government based on elections from single member geographic districts is ridiculously antiquated.
    icewendigo likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 50
    Last Post: October 9th, 2014, 06:50 AM
  2. Direct Descent, by Frank Herbert
    By Omphalos in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 18th, 2010, 10:11 PM
  3. direct proof unclear
    By scientist91 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 27th, 2009, 03:32 AM
  4. Direct mapped cache... -HELP
    By mishkinf in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 10:26 PM
  5. Can we know anything outside our direct observation?
    By couldbewrong in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: November 14th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •