TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Alternative for Democracy

Democracy lacks coherence with the imperfect nature of human beings. Decisions shouldn't be taken by majorities since we have no guarantees that these majorities are right. Giving the same amount of votes for everyone means putting someone's education on the same level with another person's ignorance. Also, decision are hardly based on analysis and studies.

The idea is still theoretic but I propose giving the power to the debate that occurs between specialists in the first place and commoners on a second level. The idea consists of a scientific method which calculates advantages and disadvantages on different levels (environmental, economic, educational...) The project that provides success on more levels is executed. The matter becomes more of a democracy of advantages rather than of people.

There are laws for debating and there is a council that organizes debates. Every town, city or public institution would have a council. For now I believe that a competition is made for assigning council members which aren't more than employees but the matter is debatable.

It is possible to change every detail by debate in this system but the main idea remains the same.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 16 2013: There is a lot of well thought out points being made about the inefficiencies of government and how a society could function without. There in lies my problem. A society really needs some rule to function. Let us assume that the members of the society have come together, establish those rules and all members agreed to abide by them. I am not familiar with detailed governmental process in other countries, but I am with my country. There are over 300 million citizens in this country. Under our present system, we have 3 levels of governance. Each citizen elects representatives to do all the work of governance. On the Federal level, Each of us votes for a president/vice president and 2 members of congress. There are 50 states, each of us votes for a governor and a member of legislature. Locally, each of us votes for councilman, maybe a mayor, sheriff and a judge. Federal government is limited to a president/vice president and and 535 congressman. States have one governor and may average less then 100 legislators. Counties have a Sheriff and a Judge. Cities and towns have one mayor and a dozen councilmen.
    There are probably 30,000 doing the governance of 300 million. Now one may question effectiveness of this system, but I question the numbers. If we were to implement such a system how many people and how much time would be needed to organized and debate the issues as have been described and that must be addressed. If I extrapolate from just what happens on a small city level, the numbers on the national scale is exponential. There comes a point of diminishing returns. Perhaps our current system is not as precise as that proposed, but it is probably good enough as they say "for government work"
    • Feb 16 2013: Well I never said there will be no rule. There will always be police, FBI for the US or intelligence and armies and an actual system based on laws, punishment, rights and duties... The idea seems too abstract but debates will actually rule not governments.

      The biggest flaw the system I proposed has, is the fact that it takes much more time to make decisions. Dictatorship breaks the record for the fastest decision maker and democracy follows. When I try to theoretically apply this system on my country where every municipality has a voting council of about 5 people, I see the numbers not really changing. The council that used to vote, now organizes debates (obviously not the same people).

      I admit the system is still theoretical and needs further and further studies and trials before being executed. Now, when it comes to a national debate, people ask me how are you going to make a whole population participate (even with a priority for specialists it still would be huge). The point is, there will be representation but not a formal one done by a congressman or a councilman...

      To make things more concrete you live in Los Angeles and in one week there will be a national debate about legalizing marijuana. Basically what happens is all private communities in the US interested in the issue assemble and choose one person or many (could be by voting I don't really care how) and write their arguments and send this person to Washington where the debate happens. If one representative got on stage and listed all the supporting arguments, there is no need for anybody else from the same opinion to say it again. If he missed a point or two or whatever, another representative will fill the gap.
      • thumb
        Feb 16 2013: OK,
        The debates will rule, and the "government offices " will carry out the rules coming from the debate conclusions. Do I understand your proposal? If that is correct, the difference I see as compared to my country is that we elect members of the "debate groups" for fixed periods to come to conclusions for the government office to effect. My "debate groups" (federal congress, state legislatures, local councils) debate all issues and can call on experts as needed to address those issues.
        If I understand you proposal, the debate councils formed as needed to conduct the debates and submit conclusions for execution. This may work in a relatively small nation, I am perplex to see how it would work in a country like the USA, India, China, Russia, or even Indonesia.
        However, if a people can see a benefit to this form of social order (basically that's what national government is about) I would say... go for it. Every peoples deserve the right to determine their own destiny. I criticize my own government for it's policy of "encouraging" other counties to emulate ours. Americans for the most part like the way they are governed. Other people may want an entirely different way of governance. That's great. The only stipulation I would make is that people decide for themselves. They should never be forced to accept a social order.
        • Feb 17 2013: Yeah you got it! I explained a bit about the selection of the council members below for
          KrisztiƔn. I think you're totally right when you say that not every country should be democratic and I don't believe neither that every country should adopt my proposal neither. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for others.

          Well I think there is a contradiction of visions that doesn't need to be or perhaps can't be resolved. You see the people responsible for their own fate and decisions while I see them unqualified to make their own path.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.