Quote:
Originally Posted by noise
Since I'm from the US, this is skewed towards American presidential politics, but here are my ideas, such as they are:
Rule #1: Any person who expresses a strong desire to become a political leader is immediately disqualified. People who desire power are the ones who abuse power. Let's start electing smart people instead of powerful people. Which brings me to:
|
Will all due respect, this is bull****. It is true that those who abuse power desire power, but not all those who desire power abuse it. Indeed, those who feel strongly about their country, and have an honest, pure desire to change it for the better, will also desire power so that they have the power to change it. Even further, if you eliminate those who desire power, you are left with those who are indifferent or even don't want to lead. What is their drive? What are their ambitions? Do they have the charisma and the leadership do encourage and Inspire their people to succeed? Given that they had no great desire for the position, the chances are that they won't.
If the world is in turmoil, it is most certainly a time when a strong, inspiring leader is needed, and if you prevent anyone with a strong desire to lead from leading, you stop that from happening. It would be better, in my opinion, to Lower the salary of positions of power: That way, those who are in it for money and power will be more likely to go the capitalist route of business, where they can earn as much as they can get their hands on, leaving those who actually want to make a difference to the Government. Yes, you'll still get a certain amount of power abusers, but less, and if you wish to stop them entirely, preventing ambitious people from being president is like abstaining from sex in order to avoid having a disabled child.
Quote:
|
Rule #2: All presidential candidates must have a graduate level degree from an accredited university.
|
Winston Churchill Arguably one of the best and most inspiring leaders of the 20th Century. Never went to university. It's a good idea in theory, but "musts" and "cannots" rarely work in the real world. Sometimes, the perfect candidate comes from the worst background.
Quote:
|
Rule #3: No candidate may spend more than $10,000 on their campaign. Enough of this election buying bull****.
|
This I agree with. Well, this I agree with if you're dead set on keeping Democracy as it is at the moment. Personally, I feel that Democratic Elections are basically a Popularity Contest, with the judges as the people who are least qualified to actually make a difference. What does the Average Joe know about Economics, World Politics, Finance, and Leadership? How could he
Possibly know enough to be able to choose "The Right Leader" with any degree of accuracy?
Quote:
|
Rule #4: All political parties are abolished. That way voters have to pay attention to the words and actions of candidates rather than just ticking the box of the person who claims to belong to their favorite party.
|
...And the senate, and parliament, and whatever else descends into Chaos. Political Parties are not just some banner for Politicians to hide behind, they serve to unite politicians to common goals, to strengthen the bonds between them, to ensure they work at least in part together, in tandem, towards a common goal. Not only that, but politicians join the parties that emulate their own views, thus people can tell roughly what the views and actions of a politician are going to be by what party they are in. Take that away, and your average voter is even more in the dark. If you take Political Parties away, Politicians will be much more likely to squabble, counteract each other and get nothing done, as each tries to further either their own agenda or the agenda of their supporters.
Quote:
Rule #5: Citizens must either vote or actively waive their right to vote. Anyone who willingly abstains from voting faces a significant tax penalty every year until the next major election.
That's all I have for now...
|
This is an interesting Idea, but why? What would it serve to do? People who don't vote are people who don't care either way what happens, or people who are too lazy to make their opinion count. In essence, people who are likely to make a decision with absolutely no forethought or research, thus making it even more likely for the wrong person to get into office. By forcing them to vote, you skew the results even further away from the desirable. Sure, they could waive their vote, but then you're right back where you started with people not voting in the first place. And what about people who just can't get to the Polling stations on the day, due to an accident, or a death in the family that they feel is more important? Should they have to Waive their right to vote entirely on the offchance that they won't be able to make it to the polling station, and if not, is it right to tax them for it?
I can see where you're coming from with these ideas, and in an ideal world it might work, but the world will never be ideal. We are humanity, and we have to work with what we are, not what we'd like us to be.