It is an interesting idea, but unfortunately, it is a major fundamental shift from the current two-party political system that has been entrenched since George Washington left office, and has devolved to the point where we usually get two terrible choices.
It would help if we eliminated political parties altogether and every candidate was independent, running on their abilities and plans, not political party dogma. But that won't happen either. Even Donald Trump realized he had to choose a party to get elected. So he chose the party most likely to vote for a narcissistic bully who promised to bring back the good old days.
A helpful baby step might be to cap the candidate age at 70. We already have a minimum of 35-years-old to run. Why not a maximum? Then they would be out of office by 78 at the oldest. And hopefully, before dimensia, sets it. And it would eliminate the old "it's my turn now" candidates.
Spitballing here: maybe we strengthen the requirement that candidate or slates submit plans as part of filing to run, and in lieu if the idiotic debates we currently have, we televise them presenting their plans and taking questions for experts and citizens, almost like defending a thesis.
I agree we need more rigor out if candidates and less choosing off pure vibes, but given that there will still need to be people making decisions under unforeseen circumstances, I want to have a look at the character and mental capacities of whoever would be making that decision.
I also have a gut issue with: the council culling down the plans (seems super top down, I feel like the best proposals tend to rise from bottom up local experiments), and with the assumption that running government like a c-suite or a startup is better than our current democratic structures (the overwhelming majority if corporations and start ups I’ve encountered are dysfunctional, reckless, toxic—not to mention dictatorial in structure—and I thank god every day that they are only responsible for selling me beer or whatever vs making more consequential decisions). It’s easy and fun to bash the way our governments run, but this idealization of business doesn’t see the thousands of businesses that fly under the radar with much more dysfunction and way less scrutiny.
I also believe we need 80 year plans but politicians are looking only as far as the next election. Development of infrastructure for say, public transport or energy (wind, solar etc) need long term planning and not an election cycle.
I totally agree with the critical remarks about the current selection of politicians as result of money and showmanship. Unfortunately your proposals for an alternative way are rather flawed: who choses and instals the 7 leading persons? The board of experts? The 7c- head of governmenet? And with 5,6,8-ys plans for governing a nation we have made very bad experiences in Communism. Different to businesses the whole enrvironement (economy, culture, clima, foreign politics., technology...) is much too complex and much too fast-moving to give theopportunity for a plan for longer times.
Consider just the opposite -- sort of. I can't stomach when politicians run on plans. We know we're in la la land. They can have Ideals. And platforms even. What they think and what they want to have happen. But what does happen isn't following plans but negotiations, adn I'll vote for people who see like I see.
It was a little scary reading about plans. So the opposite of being in harmony with life in an expanding universe, and more like the world of contraction and control that less evolved people, like those running things today, give rise to.
My first question would be whether voting for a parliamentary "slate" is a step in the right direction, or if you think that's just a different way of voting for people.
My initial response is some feeling of, "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." You correctly identify serious problems with electing politicians. But, the current system is not set up to maximize the best policies (unfortunately), it's set up to maximize the process for a clear transfer of power.
I worry that voting for plans would end up with everything being resolved in court, rather than in the election -- for many of the same reasons that citizen initiatives often end up challenged in court.
This is what FDR did. He presented a detailed plan for solving the nation's problems and then followed the plan, adjusting constantly when a method wasn't working or Congress or court balked. Most of his agencies were designed to EARN A PROFIT for the government by selling services, so the New Deal depended less on general fungible taxation. Two of the agencies, TVA and BPA, are still earning a profit 80 years later!
It is an interesting idea, but unfortunately, it is a major fundamental shift from the current two-party political system that has been entrenched since George Washington left office, and has devolved to the point where we usually get two terrible choices.
It would help if we eliminated political parties altogether and every candidate was independent, running on their abilities and plans, not political party dogma. But that won't happen either. Even Donald Trump realized he had to choose a party to get elected. So he chose the party most likely to vote for a narcissistic bully who promised to bring back the good old days.
A helpful baby step might be to cap the candidate age at 70. We already have a minimum of 35-years-old to run. Why not a maximum? Then they would be out of office by 78 at the oldest. And hopefully, before dimensia, sets it. And it would eliminate the old "it's my turn now" candidates.
Spitballing here: maybe we strengthen the requirement that candidate or slates submit plans as part of filing to run, and in lieu if the idiotic debates we currently have, we televise them presenting their plans and taking questions for experts and citizens, almost like defending a thesis.
I agree we need more rigor out if candidates and less choosing off pure vibes, but given that there will still need to be people making decisions under unforeseen circumstances, I want to have a look at the character and mental capacities of whoever would be making that decision.
I also have a gut issue with: the council culling down the plans (seems super top down, I feel like the best proposals tend to rise from bottom up local experiments), and with the assumption that running government like a c-suite or a startup is better than our current democratic structures (the overwhelming majority if corporations and start ups I’ve encountered are dysfunctional, reckless, toxic—not to mention dictatorial in structure—and I thank god every day that they are only responsible for selling me beer or whatever vs making more consequential decisions). It’s easy and fun to bash the way our governments run, but this idealization of business doesn’t see the thousands of businesses that fly under the radar with much more dysfunction and way less scrutiny.
I also believe we need 80 year plans but politicians are looking only as far as the next election. Development of infrastructure for say, public transport or energy (wind, solar etc) need long term planning and not an election cycle.
I totally agree with the critical remarks about the current selection of politicians as result of money and showmanship. Unfortunately your proposals for an alternative way are rather flawed: who choses and instals the 7 leading persons? The board of experts? The 7c- head of governmenet? And with 5,6,8-ys plans for governing a nation we have made very bad experiences in Communism. Different to businesses the whole enrvironement (economy, culture, clima, foreign politics., technology...) is much too complex and much too fast-moving to give theopportunity for a plan for longer times.
Consider just the opposite -- sort of. I can't stomach when politicians run on plans. We know we're in la la land. They can have Ideals. And platforms even. What they think and what they want to have happen. But what does happen isn't following plans but negotiations, adn I'll vote for people who see like I see.
It was a little scary reading about plans. So the opposite of being in harmony with life in an expanding universe, and more like the world of contraction and control that less evolved people, like those running things today, give rise to.
Here is an 'Interesting' suggestion ...
.
CANADA and other Western nations do not have the Human Right safeguards as exist in the US Constitution.
.
There is nothing that would prohibit the EVOLUTION of the Canadian Constitution though.
.
AN ELECTED body, a new branch of Government devoted to the protection of Human Rights would be extremely powerful..
.
Many of its ELECTED MEMBERS, by virtue of the high number of people who voted for them, would have more power than MPs elected in the same riding.
.
N.B. There is nothing in Canadian Law that would prohibit the election of members to a HUMAN RIGHTS branch of Government.
.
No this would not be a Panacea, but it would be a huge step in the direction of fixing our current Uni-Party system.
.
I don't understand how you can even get off the ground with your idealistic proposal. The U.S. Constitution stands in the way.
My first question would be whether voting for a parliamentary "slate" is a step in the right direction, or if you think that's just a different way of voting for people.
My initial response is some feeling of, "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." You correctly identify serious problems with electing politicians. But, the current system is not set up to maximize the best policies (unfortunately), it's set up to maximize the process for a clear transfer of power.
I worry that voting for plans would end up with everything being resolved in court, rather than in the election -- for many of the same reasons that citizen initiatives often end up challenged in court.
This is what FDR did. He presented a detailed plan for solving the nation's problems and then followed the plan, adjusting constantly when a method wasn't working or Congress or court balked. Most of his agencies were designed to EARN A PROFIT for the government by selling services, so the New Deal depended less on general fungible taxation. Two of the agencies, TVA and BPA, are still earning a profit 80 years later!