Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    I caught a small snippet of Ron Paul (?) speaking to Sarah Palin re the Tea Party, on newsnight I think, and he was saying that the next Republican candidate for President should be someone who does not seek to run, but rather is asked to run, to 'do a job for the country, not for themselves (yeah right!). Now, Sarah Palin is not that person, because she obviously seeks power, but as a general rule, and for the UK, should we debar people from office who seek to run for office? Should we cancel elections and instead have lotteries of anyone on the electoral register?
    It's not as if most politicians actually have a clue about the real world, so why not pick people to fulfil specific roles? And we certainly don't need 600+ scamsters, I would imagine that the government could easily be run with 50 people at most. Anything that is really contentious should be voted upon by a selection of the electorate ( or even a full rerferendum). Most of the problems we have experienced in thsi country are because of tribalist politics, and lotteries would do away with this (or at least make it less significant).
    What do you say?
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    Ridiculous.

    If your forced to do a Job, then you won't do it so your removed, unless execution was the incentive. Then when no-one does the job and the country is in a deeper **** hole that normal and we would be forced to return to the current system.
    Left for a place without a childish and spite filled Moderator with a Hitler complex. A place of democracy and common sense where questions can be asked with a Mod getting their knickers in a twist because they lack confidence and are on a power trip.

    bet this gets edited. Take care all the decent people here. have fun.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rural South Midlands
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    Quote Originally Posted by TellMeMore View Post
    I caught a small snippet of Ron Paul (?) speaking to Sarah Palin re the Tea Party, on newsnight I think, and he was saying that the next Republican candidate for President should be someone who does not seek to run, but rather is asked to run, to 'do a job for the country, not for themselves (yeah right!). Now, Sarah Palin is not that person, because she obviously seeks power, but as a general rule, and for the UK, should we debar people from office who seek to run for office? Should we cancel elections and instead have lotteries of anyone on the electoral register?
    It's not as if most politicians actually have a clue about the real world, so why not pick people to fulfil specific roles? And we certainly don't need 600+ scamsters, I would imagine that the government could easily be run with 50 people at most. Anything that is really contentious should be voted upon by a selection of the electorate ( or even a full rerferendum). Most of the problems we have experienced in thsi country are because of tribalist politics, and lotteries would do away with this (or at least make it less significant).
    What do you say?
    I have to agree with Jim on this, it's an idea which just wouldn't work. There are so many holes you could pick in such a selection procedure it's difficult to see a positive aspect.

    I will agree wholeheartedly that we do urgently need an entirely new system of government though, one which is properly democratic (although any system is bound to have a degree of representative democracy about it) and gives the ordinary person in the street a say in many everyday policy decisions.
    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant only an intellectual could ignore it - Thomas Sowell

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    582
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    I think people should be elected to ministerial positions (like you actually have to be voted in as minister for health), furthermore in order to run you have to have had experience in that field. Of course the term 'experience' would be very loose, using the health minister example again, not only doctors be able to run, but also health academics and CEOs and other health managers, who may have never had any actual 'health work' experience, but they're familiar with the industry. This would avoid the absurd situation Australia is in with an ex-rockstar (who is inept anyway) as minister for schools. This could also be a way to balance party politics, so if you agree with a Labor policy on policing, but not on the economy, then you vote in a Conservative Finance minister and a Labor police minister.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rutland
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    Quote Originally Posted by TellMeMore View Post
    I caught a small snippet of Ron Paul (?) speaking to Sarah Palin re the Tea Party, on newsnight I think, and he was saying that the next Republican candidate for President should be someone who does not seek to run, but rather is asked to run, to 'do a job for the country, not for themselves (yeah right!). Now, Sarah Palin is not that person, because she obviously seeks power, but as a general rule, and for the UK, should we debar people from office who seek to run for office? Should we cancel elections and instead have lotteries of anyone on the electoral register?
    It's not as if most politicians actually have a clue about the real world, so why not pick people to fulfil specific roles? And we certainly don't need 600+ scamsters, I would imagine that the government could easily be run with 50 people at most. Anything that is really contentious should be voted upon by a selection of the electorate ( or even a full rerferendum). Most of the problems we have experienced in thsi country are because of tribalist politics, and lotteries would do away with this (or at least make it less significant).
    What do you say?

    Disagree, I think many of the problems we face and our inability to tackle issues head on is down to democracy. If this country wanted anywhere near radical change then we should look towards an authoritarian dictatorship. It may be unpallatable to many but do you honestly think that countries like China or Nazi germany( i know some folks are going to make something of that comparison) would of been so successful if they had democracy as a political system? Or would they have turned out like the plethora of democracies that have ruling coalitions that achieve very little? The only problem is that once an authoritarian dictatorship is in power its very hard to remove them.
    Vote BNP

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,935
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas View Post
    Disagree, I think many of the problems we face and our inability to tackle issues head on is down to democracy. If this country wanted anywhere near radical change then we should look towards an authoritarian dictatorship. It may be unpallatable to many but do you honestly think that countries like China or Nazi germany( i know some folks are going to make something of that comparison) would of been so successful if they had democracy as a political system? Or would they have turned out like the plethora of democracies that have ruling coalitions that achieve very little? The only problem is that once an authoritarian dictatorship is in power its very hard to remove them.
    Which would be the only way your party would ever get into power, your agenda has always been very transparent.
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours ." Steven Roberts

    The likelyhood of you being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions.

    Barack Hussein Obama, the president that got Bin Laden!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    Jim Franklin.
    If your forced to do a Job, then you won't do it so your removed, unless execution was the incentive. Then when no-one does the job and the country is in a deeper **** hole that normal and we would be forced to return to the current system.

    so you would never, for example, sit on a jury, you have no civic duty? Why then should society pay any heed to your opinion, by which I mean, why should you be allowed a vote?

    DC
    Of course the term 'experience' would be very loose, using the health minister example again, not only doctors be able to run, but also health academics and CEOs and other health managers, who may have never had any actual 'health work' experience, but they're familiar with the industry

    Isn't one of the problems with our 'democracy' (ha bloody ha) the fact of 'interested parties' looking after their mates?

    And I agree with Nicolas on this one, we would be better off under an honest dictatorship rather than the pretend democracy we currently have. I suspect that we might disagree on who we should have as dictator, but I think this 'parliamentary democracy' is the worst of all worlds.
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    582
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    Quote Originally Posted by TellMeMore View Post
    Isn't one of the problems with our 'democracy' (ha bloody ha) the fact of 'interested parties' looking after their mates?
    Well in this case it would be much like the current political system, in that different parties would be able to run candidates for each post, so the mates argument is a bit reneged by the fact that it is still a national political campaign, and candidates are still running on policies. I don't think it has any more risk of abuse than the current system.

    Also, quote tags;

    ''

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    But look, parties are the problem, tribalism is the problem. Pragmatism, not ideology, should be the way to run a country. Successful companies aren't run on political bases, but on pragmatic ones.

    ps. I noted your delineation as "fascist", didn't realise it was "punctuation-fascist"
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Time to replace elections with lotteries?

    Quote Originally Posted by TellMeMore View Post
    so you would never, for example, sit on a jury, you have no civic duty? Why then should society pay any heed to your opinion, by which I mean, why should you be allowed a vote?
    Your comparison is way off. Sitting on a Jury is not optional unless you have a very good excuse, it is not about civic duty, but a legal requirement. I broke the law years ago so will never be called, so it is a moot point for me. As for my right to vote...I pay tax, have fought for this country and I contribute in other way, so I believe I have earned my right to vote.


    Quote Originally Posted by TellMeMore View Post
    DC
    Of course the term 'experience' would be very loose, using the health minister example again, not only doctors be able to run, but also health academics and CEOs and other health managers, who may have never had any actual 'health work' experience, but they're familiar with the industry
    I think Doctors are probably not the best people to run MoH as they will see it purely from a medical perspective, but the Health Minister has to balance this with social and political angles too, whether we like it or not, it is a simple truth. The health Minister would be good to be perhaps a former CEO of something GSK or Welcome Trust so they understand all the aspects of the health mandate, but I don't honestly believe it is that simplistic either.


    Quote Originally Posted by TellMeMore View Post
    And I agree with Nicolas on this one, we would be better off under an honest dictatorship rather than the pretend democracy we currently have. I suspect that we might disagree on who we should have as dictator, but I think this 'parliamentary democracy' is the worst of all worlds.
    Yes and NO to this. A benign dictator can be a positive boost to a nation, but I think that it cannot last as that type of power corrupts even the best people, although I am open to any explanation of it could be constrained legally...but then they would not be a dictator!!

    With regards Parliamentary Democracy, it is the best system of Governance, but the manner in which it has evolved in this country is now a bad thing and we need to radically reform it to truly reflect the modern world we live in.
    Left for a place without a childish and spite filled Moderator with a Hitler complex. A place of democracy and common sense where questions can be asked with a Mod getting their knickers in a twist because they lack confidence and are on a power trip.

    bet this gets edited. Take care all the decent people here. have fun.

Similar Threads

  1. Elections in Belarus
    By Baller in forum Other Countries
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-01-2011, 01:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •