C. V.

Professor - Applied Foreign Languages,

This conversation is closed.

get rid of politicians

politics is too important to be left to politicians. Is there anybody who doubts that? So I say let's eliminate them: they are the middle man that's no longer needed in an electronic age. We can have direct voting and open debates, using the Internet. Why not? All I see all day on the Internet are debates on books, sports teams, ideas, consumer products... and most times the dumb ideas are voted down. So let's trust ourselves and tell the politicians bye-bye.

  • thumb
    Aug 16 2011: Politicians are not from another planet. We are the politicians...
  • thumb
    Sep 4 2011: great slogan
  • thumb

    C. V.

    • 0
    Aug 20 2011: To Melissa and Tommy:

    The way I understand it, a debate is where you put forth a point, defend a proposition, and people add pro or con
    arguments.
    You ask me if I'm open minded, and you slyly ask me if I'm intelligent. Well, thank you. By the way, how could I know if I was intelligent or dumb? Isn't it rather difficult to be objective about these things?
    To say that these decisions were made by people who were supposed to make these decisions: does that mean the decisions cannot be criticized as good, bad, terrible? Does that mean someone who is 'supposed to make a decision' is above reproach? On the contrary, the essence of politics is to evaluate decisions people make, and, yes, to 'slam them' when they make bad decisions.

    Yes, I have 'heard of the Globe and Mail.' It is the most well-known paper in Canada.
    To say that people are spending 150% of their income - that is a discussion that is rather removed from the original question. But let me ask you this: you know that people cannot spend that much, unless banks lend them the money. You presumably know that after the tech bubble burst, the Fed in the US decided to flood the economy with easy money. You know that everyone jumped on this: people with shaky credit, banks, investment banks, Wall Street as a whole. You know that Wall Street and the banks conned investors, that they lured people into signing up for mortgages they couldn't afford...
    given all this, I think it's rather fair to say that it's not just about people spending more than they earn. It's about low interest rates, over-generous credit card policies, and so on. But it all starts when an arm of the State (the Fed) decides to flood the economy with easy money... doesn't it?
    One more thing about banks: they should either be private - in which case, if they take a risk, it should be a risk (i.e. if you make the wrong bet you lose), or public and nationalized. How can they be both? If their bet pans out, they pocket the money. if not, we pay.
  • Aug 19 2011: Wouldn't Mexico be worse then any of those other countries?
  • Aug 18 2011: How is, "a permanent state of highly corrupt political and economic instability" not "exceptionally bad."
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2011: easy: it is common. i mean, i'm not going to migrate to greece for example.
      • thumb

        C. V.

        • 0
        Aug 19 2011: yes, a lot of European countries are messed up. From what I hear, that is due to:
        * being dragged into the Euro before countries were ready
        * corrupt politicians
        * politicians choosing to bail up banks for the risks they, as private companies, took

        Now what do those things have in common? Decisions made by people at the top, benefiting other
        people at the top. Privatizing gains and socializing risks.
        • thumb
          Aug 19 2011: dragged by who? europe has democracies, every decision happens with the authorization of the people.

          corrupt politicians are in place because? because people voted for them.

          do you think there are massive protests against bailing out banks? not really. people support bailouts.
  • thumb
    Aug 17 2011: One example where this would be problematic is national defense. I can't see how you avoid the need for secrecy around tactical planning and still allow for direct democracy. Without politicians, who makes these decisions? Who are the people that are allowed to know relevant information?

    Also politicians on the national stage commend a lot of attention, but a great deal of politics happens on a local level where there is a daily need for decision makers on very diverse topics. Do we get rid of city councils, mayors, and school boards too? Do we really have time to all sit down and understand the minutia of city planning, energy regulation, construction contracting, zoning laws, teacher salaries, transportation, etc.

    Here's an interesting paper on the ballot initiatives in California that talks about some of the issues with putting decisions directly into the hands of the voters: http://www.iri-europe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/19_Stern.pdf
    • thumb

      C. V.

      • 0
      Aug 18 2011: Good points.
      I see this as being split.... smaller forums for cities, states, etc.... after all, they have different needs than the country as a whole. California initiatives are not what I have in mind: they are one-shot deals, and don't confront the population with the daily responsibility of governing.
      As for national defense, you can have a big open debate on general policies, and a direct vote on them; leave the planning to general staffs... in case of war, which should be rare, you can appoint a temporary review committee that can oversee decisions in secret... and then, once the emergency is over, you have that reviewed by the population at large.
  • Aug 17 2011: beacause their are too many people in today's societies Doing things would be undue able. In Athens they selected a "speaker or leader for the society every day. (may be a day or a week or what ever) But in a fast moving world we live in today it would be impossible to vote on speakers plus topics and get the daily work done. Point being that their wold be to much to do in too little time, with too many people.
    • thumb

      C. V.

      • 0
      Aug 18 2011: the civil service would remain: but instead of receiving instructions from elected representatives (who. as the term implies, are supposed to re-present us), they would receive directions directly from the population. That way you eliminate the middle layer (politicians) that can be easily corrupted or diverted.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 18 2011: still much better than in my world. in my world, you would be laid off.
        • thumb

          C. V.

          • 0
          Aug 19 2011: I take your point. But isn't it funny, how that comes across? It sounds like, forget about what people want, I want a strong leader. Democracy is too messy, let's give our lives over to strong men. It sounds like most people like their democracy in small doses, mostly symbolic ones at that. And btw, I am Canadian, not Korean... I remember what one friend of mine from Canada said once: 'we live in a dictatorship that's elected every four years.' Now that is a tad extreme and hyperbolic, but consider this: I think over 80% of politicians get re-elected. Are they really that good? Have they done such a bang-up job?
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          C. V.

          • 0
          Aug 20 2011: "In November of 1998, 401 of the 435 sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought reelection. Of those 401, all but six were reelected. In other words, incumbents seeking reelection to the House had a better than 98% success rate. U.S. Senators seeking reelection were only slightly less fortunate--slightly less than 90% of the Senate incumbents who sought reelection in 1996 held on to their seats."
          Here's some fictional voting statistics.
          And what's with the snarky personal comments?
  • thumb

    C. V.

    • 0
    Aug 17 2011: has anyone actually made a point against the idea? A substantial point as to why it's wrong?
    That's what I'd like to see. I mean, you disagree, that's fine, but can you say why?
  • Aug 17 2011: I'm from Ottawa witch is like the hart of Canadian politics so i see a lot about what they do. Yes they can do things that the public doesn't like their humans to their going to make mistakes, and bad things are going to happen, but they often are put between a rock and a hard place and they are forced to see many different things we don't. for example there was a thing lately about wind mills not making as much energy as they bring in. i had a plan to make twisting wires in side them not an issue and the ice on the propellers not have to be heated off. but then my aunt made me think differently. no wires no need for the producers and keepers of the wires. with ice on the wings more things such as houses are damaged. with this new powers source other other energy markets become smaller. So far people have lost property and jobs. i'm not a good writer so i don't know if this makes exact sense but look beyond the writing into the message. these propellers may in theory be good for the environment but are they really whats best for the people? now try having this debate with like 8 billion people. half don't really understand or know the facts and another 40% don't care
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Aug 14 2011: so after eduardo's reply, please reconsider the question "is there anybody who doubts that?", and start to accommodate yourself to solitude.
  • Aug 14 2011: What a crazy thing. Do you want to come back to the stone time? What would we be without politicians? They control the world and it is not a bad thing. They may make bad things, but we need them. Without them the world would fall down because the world is evoluted, but human beings were always controlled by a more powerful man, it won't change from night to day.
    • thumb

      C. V.

      • 0
      Aug 15 2011: so your argument is that we'll go to the stone age without politicians? and that we were always controlled by powerful men, so we might as well continue?

      that's just a poor way to argue: listen, ancient Athens was governed by a form of direct democracy, and they are one of the great examples of human achievement. The usual argument is that you couldn't do that in a big country, that the sheer number of people makes not practical: I would argue that the electronic age allows us to connect with other people, and that allows more people to talk, argue and ultimately agree.

      Instead of just declaring stuff, perhaps you have an argument to make?
      • Aug 19 2011: Sorry C.V. But I think you didn't understand me. I think it's because my language is different of yours and I still don't have a good English, I think.
        I haven't written that this idea is bad. I have meant that this idea isn't easily applicable. I think so, I am not sure because it's from my personality that I can believe, but I'm sure only if I see, or if someone show me a proof or something like this.

        I think that there are two meanings: Politics and politician. It could (not would) be very good if politicians don't exist. The problem is, as Erol Toksoy has said, people are based in this principle (Politics) and people in general are not ready to adopt something different.
    • thumb
      Aug 15 2011: Eduardo, i say we lives to our full potential as humans and take back control from men and woman who do not care about you asmuch as you think.