Up vanity, down royal state

[Galant]

No reason in the modern world bills going through parliament could not be proposed / ratified by people logging in from home.

Actually there are plenty.

The infrastructure doesn't exist and at the moment cannot. Fraud would abound. At least with elected officials you know for certain who voted for what and what the process was.
Additionally, there are limits and processes involved in submitting and ratifying bills. Give millions direct access to propose and vote on items and that system becomes unmanageable.
Then there's the fact that the idea of IQ being of benefit assumes that such "high IQ" voters both have the inclination, time and other resources to examine all bills and related information, they won't, they'll have other jobs. IQ is nice but one still has to apply that to knowledge.

Then of course we come back to the basic point underlying all this and that is that governing and building a society isn't a matter of pure mathematics as though a calculator could sort it out. In politics and society the goal line isn't fixed, in fact, one could argue it's not even defined. What's the end game of society? Does everyone agree on what's most important and where we should be heading and how? Individuals of any given IQ can differ massively on a way forward because of the differing values they place on things. What's more important, material prosperity, technological advancement, the pursuit of pleasure, freedom of expression? There is no 'right' answer that can be calculated and so IQ is only a part of the equation; the answer is subjective, we define for ourselves what the goal and purpose is. If that's the case, if human choice and desire are the bottom line, then the individual is of maximum importance and there is no way to say that an irrational or silly choice or plan or desire is any better or worse than any other. All we can say is that there are different plans and we'll all pitch in our voice and go with the majority. That, theoretically, is democracy. No 'right' or 'wrong' just the majority. Thus, everyone's voice counts. Who can say any differently?

[SeriousSam]

Below average IQ people shouldn't be allowed to make electoral decisions. They are simply not bright enough to understand.

Your argument follows the same logic as we should allow drunk drivers because banning them doesn't stop road accidents.

It may appear logical to you but it is based on an entirely specious assumption. That being that people of below average IQ are the same as drunk drivers. You are presuming guilt before an act and then likening it to one where an act has been committed. In some respects this illustrates my point that irrespective of intelligence, cognitive bias creates irrational belief structures.

[yamangman]

Here I thought that the house of Windsor was a bone of contention, turns out the IQ of the proles is more interesting! If you wanted to gerrymander in favor of Tory-style conservatism, there must be easier ways to do it. Deny votes to young people, women or minorities for instance .

...

If they're so damned cheap and patriotic, let them pay for themselves. If they're so neutral, why can't we have a transcription, even a slight clue about the discussion, when they meet party leaders and the PM? If they're so traditional, who says tradition disappears upon their removal?

Berlesconi, Sarkosy, Bush Jnr, Nixon, etc etc; hardly awesome figures.

I quite agree, yet still want to get rid of them, or put them all in a 3 bed terrace in Darlington.

...

It's a security nightmare. The chap you're replying to is advocating an experiment that has been performed. It's called Athenian democracy. Consider the etymology of the word he uses to describe people whom he thinks shouldn't vote - 'idiot'.

[peterb]

It has nothing to do with eugenics. I suggest you find a dictionary before using words you don't understand.

It has nothing to do with gender.

I would normally expect better from you.

Anyway - I'm done with this thread - fed up with people spectacularly demolishing arguments nobody made.

I know quite well what eugenics is - which is why I said a version of - you are selecting people to vote on a criteria that is hard to measure, and over which the person has no control. You might just as well select on the basis of gender - or race or whatever, hence my second comment.

However, to address your other point,

You are referring to a plebiscite which worked reasonable well for a small population like ancient Greece, , but unlikely tp work well with large populations. Look at recent referenda in this country.

You also ignore the fact that Parliament is a debating chamber, and few bills are ratified as originally drafted.

You also ignore the three pillars of democracy, the Judiciary, Legislature and executive - the executive being formed out to the the majority of MPs - or one where a coalition can be formed.

A credible possibility might be to select people at random (like Jury service) to sit in Parliament for a fixed term.

However, as you are done with the thread, I am probably wasting my time going further

[ik9000]

Strikes me both sides are arguing for the same thing in different ways. The people at large need to vote in people who are experts and who are able to understand the complicated things the people cannot on their behalf. It is not that the less-bright folk should be denied a vote, but there needs to be careful selection of the shortlist of candidates from which they can vote in the first place. Politicians ought to have to sit mega IQ and competency exams, regularly. Career politicians should not be allowed, and no-one should be allowed near the place unless they have demonstrated the ability to 1) hold down long-term stable employment (no lazy spongers) 2) be of upright character (no fraudster/nutter/scumbags) 3) demonstrate competency in whatever it is they've done for the last 10-20 years (no calamity Janes/Ed Balls-ups) and 4) have the literacy and reasoning skills to be able to present cases both for and against relevant topics of the time (no bigotted blinkered thinkers) and 5) display the willingness to actually debate in a grown up manner in the aim of reaching the best outcome for the country, rather than simply siding with their party whip...

Sensible governance will prevail even in a democracy as we currently have it, if the willingness is there to ensure sensible candidates in the first place. Otherwise short-termist populist voting will inevitably prevail, a la Greece, to the detriment of us all.

[opel80uk]

Strikes me both sides are arguing for the same thing in different ways. The people at large need to vote in people who are experts and who are able to understand the complicated things the people cannot on their behalf. It is not that the less-bright folk should be denied a vote, but there needs to be careful selection of the shortlist of candidates from which they can vote in the first place. Politicians ought to have to sit mega IQ and competency exams, regularly. Career politicians should not be allowed, and no-one should be allowed near the place unless they have demonstrated the ability to 1) hold down long-term stable employment (no lazy spongers) 2) be of upright character (no fraudster/nutter/scumbags) 3) demonstrate competency in whatever it is they've done for the last 10-20 years (no calamity Janes/Ed Balls-ups) and 4) have the literacy and reasoning skills to be able to present cases both for and against relevant topics of the time (no bigotted blinkered thinkers) and 5) display the willingness to actually debate in a grown up manner in the aim of reaching the best outcome for the country, rather than simply siding with their party whip...

If you start dictating who can and can't stand as a candidate, and in turn removing the opportunity to be elected by the people from a large chunk of the population, based on what appear to be subjective criteria, then that's not really democracy, is it?

Sensible governance will prevail even in a democracy as we currently have it, if the willingness is there to ensure sensible candidates in the first place. Otherwise short-termist populist voting will inevitably prevail, a la Greece, to the detriment of us all.

How do you know what's happened in Greece is 'to the detriment of us all'? Someone comes in and challenges (and wins) the usual hegemony that exists in most societies that has lurched from crisis to crisis to crisis for generations now, and suddenly it's bad for all of us. No wonder complacency runs like the Nile through most major political parties.

[peterb]

I do have a problem with career politicians in that they don't always have much real world experience, and it does call into question whether they are more interested in furthering their career, rather than the interests of their constituency.

On the other hand, their career does depend on their constituency, although in a safe seat, that reduces the incentive, and it's not unknown to have an MP dropped into a safe seat just so they can remain in Parliament.

But the only way round that would be to increase the minimum age for standing as an MP, to (for example) 40, but again that is an arbitrary selection criteria.

[opel80uk]

I do have a problem with career politicians in that they don't always have much real world experience, and it does call into question whether they are more interested in furthering their career, rather than the interests of their constituency.

On the other hand, their career does depend on their constituency, although in a safe seat, that reduces the incentive, and it's not unknown to have an MP dropped into a safe seat just so they can remain in Parliament.

But the only way round that would be to increase the minimum age for standing as an MP, to (for example) 40, but again that is an arbitrary selection criteria.

But if a political system in a country exists whereby it allows a situation of someone being elected almost entirely because of the political party they belong to, rather than, and in some cases in spite of, what the individual stands for, then that is indicative of a broken system. Blaming career politicians, and looking at how to stop them, rather than looking at the rotten environment that allows and encourages that type of politician is IMO, pointless.

[SeriousSam]

It is a quandary as for example you wouldn't hire a plumber to rewire your house. Having experience of politics is in some ways a benefit. The issue for me in some ways is more the effect of media and what that has meant career politicians have had to become to survive. The age of the "sound-bite" has led to an almost pathological need to avoid questions which are intentionally designed to trap them into something that will make for headlines. Yes there is more to it than that, but it certainly isn't helping.

[ik9000]

Opel, it's not dictating who can and can't nominate themselves as a candidate, it's about then ensuring that nominee has the expertise for the job. I could put myself forward to do your knee operation with my black and decker tool set, but you'd rightly require your surgeon to be competent and adequately trained. Just so for our politicians please!

[opel80uk]

Opel, it's not dictating who can and can't nominate themselves as a candidate, it's about then ensuring that nominee has the expertise for the job. I could put myself forward to do your knee operation with my black and decker tool set, but you'd rightly require your surgeon to be competent and adequately trained. Just so for our politicians please!

Comparing a Surgeon and a Politician is entirely disengenuous. The criteria used to select a politician in a Democracy is not how competent they are, but whether it's the will of the people to elect that individual as a representative of the voters. If it's the will of the people to elect someone who is incompetent and inadequately trained (although in whose opinion?), then that is their (our) right. A surgeon on the other hand is able allowed to be a surgeon based almost entirely on his competence. That's the criteria used for society to decide who can and cannot be surgeons.

If you want to arbitrarily add requirements for those seeking election, based on what at best seem to be a subjective criteria because you think it will lead to better governance, then I understand that position, but don't dress it up as democracy, because it's clearly not.

If we listened to you and that other champion of peoples rights Wasabi, we'd have a large section of the population not allowed to vote in elections or stand for parliament. Who says right wing fascism is dead?

[Galant]

Strikes me both sides are arguing for the same thing in different ways. The people at large need to vote in people who are experts and who are able to understand the complicated things the people cannot on their behalf. It is not that the less-bright folk should be denied a vote, but there needs to be careful selection of the shortlist of candidates from which they can vote in the first place. Politicians ought to have to sit mega IQ and competency exams, regularly. Career politicians should not be allowed, and no-one should be allowed near the place unless they have demonstrated the ability to 1) hold down long-term stable employment (no lazy spongers) 2) be of upright character (no fraudster/nutter/scumbags) 3) demonstrate competency in whatever it is they've done for the last 10-20 years (no calamity Janes/Ed Balls-ups) and 4) have the literacy and reasoning skills to be able to present cases both for and against relevant topics of the time (no bigotted blinkered thinkers) and 5) display the willingness to actually debate in a grown up manner in the aim of reaching the best outcome for the country, rather than simply siding with their party whip...

Sensible governance will prevail even in a democracy as we currently have it, if the willingness is there to ensure sensible candidates in the first place. Otherwise short-termist populist voting will inevitably prevail, a la Greece, to the detriment of us all.

Although I empathise with the sentiment I disagree with the solution. For one, as Opel has said, there's a big problem with a supposed democracy that limits who can and can't receive votes. It goes against the principles of a democracy and can lead to some rather nasty destinations.

For another, though, I think a big part of the problem is a result of a wrong approach, that is, from trying to solve these issue by identifying the perfect candidate or government with whom we can trust the running of the country. I think that's the wrong approach because it is a unicorn hunt and misses a big part of why democracy is the best system available. Democracy is the best not because it emphasises brilliance and capability of human beings but instead the reverse - it accounts for their persistent failings.

"I think most people [support democracy] for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true... The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so flawed that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” C. S. Lewis

“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a [supporter of democracy]. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe ... men to be so [flawed] that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe [in] an egalitarian world. ...we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality.” C. S. Lewis

There is no such thing as the perfect ruler or perfect system, so I think it's a waste of time to look for one. Instead, I think the solution is smaller/more local government. Encourage more and more responsibility at every level (from national, to county, to local, as well as corporate and individual), encourage better, more thorough, wiser, education.

[Domestic_Ginger]

Great C S Lewis quotes.

I would be terrified to burden local councils with any more responsibilities. The overheads from duplicating positions would cripple it.

I'm not really interested in politics tbh. All the parties are the same. France for their many failings has a system where anybody can run; if they can get a share of the votes the state will pay for them. Here we're stuck with the same old three; I can only assume finances and hangover from the cold war have kept the socialists away.

I would like to see greater tax for the 1%. Tax laws I can understand. Stop selling off assets for a quick buck. Stop building so many frigging shoe box houses and tax the hell out of the 10 house owners / foreign investers.

[ik9000]

I would like to see greater tax for the 1%. Tax laws I can understand. Stop selling off assets for a quick buck. Stop building so many frigging shoe box houses and tax the hell out of the 10 house owners / foreign investers.

Amen, amen & amen!

[herulach]

Great C S Lewis quotes.

I would be terrified to burden local councils with any more responsibilities. The overheads from duplicating positions would cripple it.

I'm not really interested in politics tbh. All the parties are the same. France for their many failings has a system where anybody can run; if they can get a share of the votes the state will pay for them. Here we're stuck with the same old three; I can only assume finances and hangover from the cold war have kept the socialists away.

I would like to see greater tax for the 1%. Tax laws I can understand. Stop selling off assets for a quick buck. Stop building so many frigging shoe box houses and tax the hell out of the 10 house owners / foreign investers.

You realise that the british electoral system works the same way? Anyone can stand provided you're not bankrupt, a judge etc. If you manage to form a suitably large political party you can also get a budget from the commons.

House price inflation is not the responsibility of eveeel foreign boogeymen. its a result of easy access to credit, the inevitable concentration of jobs into smaller places due to change in the economy and the piss poor infrastructure that serves to further concentrate jobs and people. Property taxes won't serve to deflate house prices significantly any more than 5 and 6 % interest rates did.