These overviews are anonymous, so there is no way to vote for who has the nicest hair But if the policy is anonymous enough that the MP can't be identified, what would prevent the re-election of an MP who already had a history of ignoring their election manifesto?
How would those laws be judged? Punishing MPs for ignoring their manifesto commitments sounds good to me, but moves considerable political power either to the judiciary or a non-anonymous vote by the people.
That's a big problem. In my mind, you'd need a combination of a benevolent dictatorship to determine the framework, and then a body of parliament to carry out the finer points.
The dictatorship could work like a scientific ethics commitee, instead it would be a socio-political ethics committee.
The other inherent problem here is that the system would be more complex than many could understand and would therefore lose a lot of transparency to the less educated / intelligent areas of society.
Also, I think the main flaw with Greek democracy is that it didn't anticipate how things are today. History is all well and good, but we need a new system tailored to how things are today.
The big threat we have currently is that the wealth growing meme effectively rules the world like a polycephalic immortal behemoth - it hosts itself in human minds, uses us to do its bidding and then spits out husks. None of its needs serve that of any but the finest oil slick stratum of humanity, and even then it leaves those behind by age and death as it grows in the wake of continual birth and senescence of its hosts.
Comments 40
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
But if the policy is anonymous enough that the MP can't be identified, what would prevent the re-election of an MP who already had a history of ignoring their election manifesto?
Reply
Similar to the law which revokes the license to call your publication news if you are found to be knowingly printing falsehoods or speculation.
Reply
Reply
In my mind, you'd need a combination of a benevolent dictatorship to determine the framework, and then a body of parliament to carry out the finer points.
The dictatorship could work like a scientific ethics commitee, instead it would be a socio-political ethics committee.
The other inherent problem here is that the system would be more complex than many could understand and would therefore lose a lot of transparency to the less educated / intelligent areas of society.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Which is why we need to design a *system* which is better.
The system needs basic tenets which are applied to every proposed change.
Reply
History is all well and good, but we need a new system tailored to how things are today.
The big threat we have currently is that the wealth growing meme effectively rules the world like a polycephalic immortal behemoth - it hosts itself in human minds, uses us to do its bidding and then spits out husks. None of its needs serve that of any but the finest oil slick stratum of humanity, and even then it leaves those behind by age and death as it grows in the wake of continual birth and senescence of its hosts.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment