You need to purge your government of the selfish, the cruel and the corrupt. It doesn’t matter what form of organization you choose if you don’t keep the assholes out of power.
See… That the problem, the quote that best comes to mind is.
" The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. "
Make it a small council, 3 to 5 people chosen at random from a pool limited to those with some list of qualifications. Make it a point system based on academic, civic, and business success. Those that have enough points are automatically in the pool.
Business success is a skill, and knowledge set, that’s crucial to the economy, without which the US wouldn’t be a global leader. The point of having multiple skill set leaders on a small council is to prevent the ‘business above all else’ mind set from prevailing, while also making sure needed expertise is at the table.
Yeah, and while we’re at it let’s disenfranchise the intellectually disabled as well. /sarcasm
Personally I prefer term limits rather than an age cap because I’d rather see government represent everyone. If a 75-year-old manages to win an election by running a successful campaign, why shouldn’t they govern? But if they’re only in office because they ran unchallenged for 30 years… time to make room for change.
The biggest issue with term limits is that it transfers agency away from elected officials, and empowers unelected staffers who will instead be the ones with all of the institutional knowledge on ‘how things are done’ - further entrenching the rot.
By instead having an age restriction, it still allows for popular politicians to remain within Congress and transfer experience to newer members, while also incentivising politicians to plan long-term and focus on bettering things for future generations, as they will ultimately be the ones responsible for looking after things. After all, “a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit under.”
We have a great case study in how effective term limits are at achieving good governance: California. It’s just as @thatKamGuy said-- it empowers party bureaucracies, advisors and civil servants at the expense of elected legislators.
California’s governance did improve, but largely due to structural reforms to the budgeting process pushed through when Jerry Brown was governor. Term limits are a band-aid that doesn’t even stick properly.
Because if you’re not going to be around to see the consequences of the policies you supported maybe you shouldn’t be taking part in it.
We don’t let children take part in the policies being made even though they will change their entire lives, but we do it because they aren’t informed enough for such decisions. Well guess what? Children are often smarter than people who are sun downing and while an old person only gets dumber as the years pass a child gets smarter.
I don’t think there’s a clean standard for gerrymandering. There’s only more gerrymandering or less gerrymandering, and it’s a subjective court decision when it’s gone too far
You need to purge your government of the selfish, the cruel and the corrupt. It doesn’t matter what form of organization you choose if you don’t keep the assholes out of power.
See… That the problem, the quote that best comes to mind is.
-Douglas Adams
Make it a small council, 3 to 5 people chosen at random from a pool limited to those with some list of qualifications. Make it a point system based on academic, civic, and business success. Those that have enough points are automatically in the pool.
Business success does not belong on that list. Giving capital interests a seat at the table is how we got and continue to be here.
Business success is a skill, and knowledge set, that’s crucial to the economy, without which the US wouldn’t be a global leader. The point of having multiple skill set leaders on a small council is to prevent the ‘business above all else’ mind set from prevailing, while also making sure needed expertise is at the table.
Start with an automatic retirement age; no one over the age of 65 (for example) can serve as an elected representative.
Honestly, the same should likely apply to voter eligibility - to be honest - but that’s a whole separate argument for another time.
Yeah, and while we’re at it let’s disenfranchise the intellectually disabled as well. /sarcasm
Personally I prefer term limits rather than an age cap because I’d rather see government represent everyone. If a 75-year-old manages to win an election by running a successful campaign, why shouldn’t they govern? But if they’re only in office because they ran unchallenged for 30 years… time to make room for change.
The biggest issue with term limits is that it transfers agency away from elected officials, and empowers unelected staffers who will instead be the ones with all of the institutional knowledge on ‘how things are done’ - further entrenching the rot.
By instead having an age restriction, it still allows for popular politicians to remain within Congress and transfer experience to newer members, while also incentivising politicians to plan long-term and focus on bettering things for future generations, as they will ultimately be the ones responsible for looking after things. After all, “a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit under.”
We have a great case study in how effective term limits are at achieving good governance: California. It’s just as @thatKamGuy said-- it empowers party bureaucracies, advisors and civil servants at the expense of elected legislators.
California’s governance did improve, but largely due to structural reforms to the budgeting process pushed through when Jerry Brown was governor. Term limits are a band-aid that doesn’t even stick properly.
Because if you’re not going to be around to see the consequences of the policies you supported maybe you shouldn’t be taking part in it.
We don’t let children take part in the policies being made even though they will change their entire lives, but we do it because they aren’t informed enough for such decisions. Well guess what? Children are often smarter than people who are sun downing and while an old person only gets dumber as the years pass a child gets smarter.
For example, if you’re termed out and leaving someone else to clean up your mess?
I don’t think there’s a clean standard for gerrymandering. There’s only more gerrymandering or less gerrymandering, and it’s a subjective court decision when it’s gone too far