[Annoying-Mouse]

People are always saying how our parliamentary structure encourages short-term interest/gains over long-term and I tend to sympathize with this view but can people give a alternative structure that doesn't fall into this trap (preferably ones that are currently adopted or have been adopted historically)?

[blueray]

Do you want to create a thread on political ideologies, because I see this going that way.

Different systems: Communism, socialism, libertarianism, non crony capitalism the list goes on, and in theory they are all fine (if you support them), what we need is honest people who will actually implement them, not just standby them.

And corruption is one of the main reasons why the current system governments don't do very well (see above point)

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by blueray)
Do you want to create a thread on political ideologies, because I see this going that way.

Different systems: Communism, socialism, libertarianism, non crony capitalism the list goes on, and in theory they are all fine (if you support them), what we need is honest people who will actually implement them, not just standby them.

And corruption is one of the main reasons why the current system governments don't do very well (see above point)

No. I'm specifically looking for solutions to the problems of short-term gains over long-term gains fueled by the presence of different parties who have needs to be reelected.

[blueray]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No. I'm specifically looking for solutions to the problems of short-term gains over long-term gains fueled by the presence of different parties who have needs to be reelected.

That's called human nature for greed. It will never go away, unless you change the ENTIRE system or mindset of politicians.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by blueray)
That's called human nature for greed. It will never go away, unless you change the ENTIRE system or mindset of politicians.

What system is there that is able to combat human nature for greed or potential for greed?

[blueray]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
What system is there that is able to combat human nature for greed or potential for greed?

Like I said it's one of those ideologies. Libertarianism, makes govs as small as possible and tries to limit their power over you, so you are essentially free to do what you like. Socialists would argue this is individualism and will make the poor will stay poor from it etc, but the libbies argue back.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by blueray)
Like I said it's one of those ideologies. Libertarianism, makes govs as small as possible and tries to limit their power over you, so you are essentially free to do what you like. Socialists would argue this is individualism and will make the poor will stay poor from it etc, but the libbies argue back.

What about your stance though? Do you think this problem can be solved? Do you agree with any of these ideologies stance? Do you see this problem as a necessary evil?

The only solution I can see is a more direct democracy however for this to work, the electorate will have to be reasonably educated and corporate/organizational influences reduced.

[blueray]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
What about your stance though? Do you think this problem can be solved? Do you agree with any of these ideologies stance? Do you see this problem as a necessary evil?

The only solution I can see is a more direct democracy however for this to work, the electorate will have to be reasonably educated and corporate/organizational influences reduced.

My stance will be shown once metro gives the go ahead on the TSR Green Party

I have always said education is the key.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by blueray)
My stance will be shown once metro gives the go ahead on the TSR Green Party

I have always said education is the key.

Blair also said that. It's a much harder task than your making it seem.

[OedipusTheKing]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
What system is there that is able to combat human nature for greed or potential for greed?

You could just have the same political system but refuse to pay individuals for their input into politics. Of course then you would have the same problem - only a rich elite could afford to get into the system, and obviously they will support their laws which better their own business adventures, disadvantaging everyone else.

Another issue is in effect that many voters do not seem to have a sound grasp of the philosophical arguments that each party represents. Instead the voter turns into a mass crowd of blamers for not getting what they want (which is hardly suprising) and then proceed to vote for an opposite party. Hence we get a cycle of Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, which issue forth dated solutions. I would impose some sort of political competency test on the electorate, and those that pass should be given two votes.

It is rather amusing that the public blame the politicians for said country's problems, but they are perhaps the biggest sophist in deluding themselves of responsibility. If the electorate actually engaged in dialectical argument and analysed each party's points effectively in the first place, we might be a better situation. Alas, but this is a flaw with democracy in general. The voter votes impusively, and is easily led astray from justice by mass-corperations (think of Ruport Murdoch).

Sadly though, at least in a democracy we can remove obviously corrupt leaders and that is why, probably, I put up with it. It is a necessary evil, given corruption under dictatorship etc would prove far more catastrophic - although I do prefer the ideal of a noble tyrant.

[blueray]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Blair also said that. It's a much harder task than your making it seem.

Blair also killed loads of people, I didn't. How am I making it seem an easy task. Your thread was answered in my first post and now I have to elaborate. It is complex, to see which system you like go in "Ask A XYZ Thread"

[Logi]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
People are always saying how our parliamentary structure encourages short-term interest/gains over long-term and I tend to sympathize with this view but can people give a alternative structure that doesn't fall into this trap (preferably ones that are currently adopted or have been adopted historically)?

The only thing I can think of is "an electorate who actually give a ****" and don't just think politics is boring. Maybe then they would vote in parties with long term goals. Having said that evidence from the boomers would suggest that people don't exactly favour deferred gratification even if it means screwing over their own kids so perhaps not

Other than that I can only think of dictatorships. Kind of sad really.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by OedipusTheKing)
You could just have the same political system but refuse to pay individuals for their input into politics. Of course then you would have the same problem - only a rich elite could afford to get into the system, and obviously they will support their laws which better their own business adventures, disadvantaging everyone else.

Another issue is in effect that many voters do not seem to have a sound grasp of the philosophical arguments that each party represents. Instead the voter turns into a mass crowd of blamers for not getting what they want (which is hardly suprising) and then proceed to vote for an opposite party. Hence we get a cycle of Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, which issue forth dated solutions. I would impose some sort of political competency test on the electorate, and those that pass should be given two votes.

It is rather amusing that the public blame the politicians for said country's problems, but they are perhaps the biggest sophist in deluding themselves of responsibility. If the electorate actually engaged in dialectical argument and analysed each party's points effectively in the first place, we might be a better situation. Alas, but this is a flaw with democracy in general. The voter votes impusively, and is easily led astray from justice by mass-corperations (think of Ruport Murdoch).

Sadly though, at least in a democracy we can remove obviously corrupt leaders and that is why, probably, I put up with it. It is a necessary evil, given corruption under dictatorship etc would prove far more catastrophic - although I do prefer the ideal of a noble tyrant.

Agreed. What would such a test include though? It would have to be strictly fact-based to avoid any biases. Would it be on the theoretical side? Or current affairs? Also,

I don't really think testing would solve much, I think only education would be able to solve the problem and we're just going to have to live with it until then, one advantage of our current system is the lack of competency can't hurt us very much due to the fact that we aren't very democratic.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Logi)
The only thing I can think of is "an electorate who actually give a ****" and don't just think politics is boring. Maybe then they would vote in parties with long term goals. Having said that evidence from the boomers would suggest that people don't exactly favour deferred gratification even if it means screwing over their own kids so perhaps not

Other than that I can only think of dictatorships. Kind of sad really.

I think localism can help in this regard and by localism I mean a community no bigger than couple hundred but we would have to give more freedom to local communities on how they run their community. That way we can provide incentives for people to be more politically active. It's much easier to change 100s of people instead of 10s of millions. It's also easier to reduce corporate influences this way.

We should look at how some of Switzerland's communities are able to do it.

[OedipusTheKing]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Agreed. What would such a test include though? It would have to be strictly fact-based to avoid any biases. Would it be on the theoretical side? Or current affairs? Also,

I don't really think testing would solve much, I think only education would be able to solve the problem and we're just going to have to live with it until then, one advantage of our current system is the lack of competency can't hurt us very much due to the fact that we aren't very democratic.

Well, as I alluded to earlier, I would hardly consider the electorate having a dialectical argument with their peers like Plato would have had in a symposium. So essentially that rules out the theoretical side - unfortunately many people just do not have a passion for philosophy, which is why they only have dim notions of what the terms 'conservative' 'liberal' actually mean.

I wouldn't consider a factual based exam particularly useful either. Ticking boxes correctly on liberal philosophy or whatever hardly challenges the mind in any meaningful way. No, I think you're right. If we were to train the electorate we would have to introduce politics in a deep and meaningful way, into education.

It should be considered as a subject parallel to that of Mathematics or the Sciences, however if one were to fail the political syllabus then they should not be given the civil liberty to vote. Of course the syllabus could be retaken at any time. It would based on argument, and developing a critical line of discussion amongst the electorate. Put simply, I do think philosophy should be compulsory in every secondary school - and 'but it's boring' cannot be an adequate excuse.

Politics affects every essence of our lives, as the BBC put it in rather cliché terms, from the price of the beans we buy to what restrictions should be put on our freedom. It is just as important as any other branch of academia. But you're right, the unlikelihood of implementing such a system makes my idea rather utopian - not least because many of the current ruling elite would not want a progressively educated public.

[conquer]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
People are always saying how our parliamentary structure encourages short-term interest/gains over long-term and I tend to sympathize with this view but can people give a alternative structure that doesn't fall into this trap (preferably ones that are currently adopted or have been adopted historically)?

Good thread. I'm surprised it hasn't got more replies.

As others have said, a fully democratic system is probably one of the best ways of dealing with the problem. But even that won't work well if the general public aren't educated enough in politics & economics upon which they can make sound decisions when voting.