Better Idea
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Elections
are a stupid way to determine who gets to hold office. Although that
fact hasn't been generally recognized, it has long been noted.
"A
democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always
votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public
treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose
fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship....."
— Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish economist,
1776
Source: http://www.homosapiens.net/
Do
voters vote for a candidate who tells them that they need to work hard,
save money, contribute, sacrifice, and tolerate the different attitudes
of others? Of course not. Voters vote for candidates who promise
them cheap medicine, food, fuel, or whatever else they might want, and
who promise to punish other people, with different beliefs, of whose behavior
the voters disapprove. Among the results are lazy intolerant voters,
powerful repressive government, phoney "money" in an economy based on the
vapor standard, and prisons full of innocent people.
Apologists
for democracy like to claim that it isn't perfect, it's just the best system
available. That, of course, isn't much of a recommendation.
Democracy doesn't need to be very good in order to be better than the various
authoritarian alternatives. However, I have a better idea.
Instead
of elections, why not have selections? By that I mean officeholders
could be chosen by lot. Just let the candidates put their names "in
the hat" and then choose winners by drawing names. Well, why not?
Since
there wouldn't be any need to win votes, then there wouldn't have to be
campaigns. With no more campaigns, there wouldn't be any more campaign
promises, campaign finance problems, or political parties. Those
and all of the other evils of elections would be eliminated. The
results might not be any better, but they probably wouldn't be any worse,
either.
How
can the selection process be controlled, so it's fair? I have the
answer to that, too. Every name that goes into the hat constitutes
a contractual obligation — and this part must be constitutionally specified,
so it will be immune to legislative and judicial tampering. Every
name in the hat is an obligation. Every candidate who doesn't get
selected for the office for which he made a bid must serve, for the duration
of that term of office, on the Selection Committee. It will be the
job of the Selection Committee to run the next selection. Thus, if
somebody feels that he was cheated by an unfair selection, he has the opportunity
to correct the problem next time around. Furthermore, he knows that
he'd better do it right, because the people who lose during his stint on
the Selection Committee will be running things the time after that.
All the incentives in the system will tend to promote a fair and impartial
selection process. That's a far cry from the incentives built into
the present election system.
There's
one final issue. Who can be a candidate? Anybody except current
Selection Committee members — felons, pedophiles, children, women, priests,
Muslims, Jews, even lawyers. That, also, must be constitutionally
mandated, or the reformers will prohibit participation by some despised
minority, and then the whole system will deteriorate. Given universal
access, there will never be any segment of the population that will go
for long without representation. The more aggrieved the members of
a segment of the population feel, the more of them will throw their names
into the hat. Again, the incentives are such that the system will
inherently correct any injustices that might arise.
Will
it happen? Of course not. Only the people would benefit.
Only the present "establishment" would be harmed. The present system
will never allow such a thing to happen.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
frontiersman@ida.net |
Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
May 2002
Page 1
|
|