Vince Cable - Democracy is a terrible way to make decisions

Scroll to see replies

You are using two very specific (and unrepresentative) examples. How about any given African, South American, South Asian or East European democracy vs. China?

Such as? Name me a country that has direct democracy like the Swiss

Reply 21

Betelgeuse-

Original post by oShahpo

I am not saying we should be a dictatorship, I am only saying that we should choose the experts who have views similar to ours, THEN leave the experts to do the complex economic and political analysis of situations like this.

Why do you trust the uninformed plebs to elect the right experts? Especially if they elect the experts with views similar to their own.

Reply 22

Betelgeuse-

Original post by oShahpo

Technocracies, from my understanding, are not voted to power, I oppose that. I want people to select someone who represents them and their beliefs, then leave the person they choose, who should be an expert, to make the big decisions.

The UK have been doing this for decades and the experts just ignore the plebs. Now what?

Reply 23

DorianGrayism

Cornwall voted Brexit.

......................................
John Pollard, the leader of Cornwall council said: “Now that we know the UK will be leaving the EU we will be taking urgent steps to ensure that the UK Government protects Cornwall’s position in any negotiations.

“We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60m per year over the last ten years.”
......................................

Hahahaha. **** off.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 24

oShahpo

Original post by Betelgeuse-

Why do you trust the uninformed plebs to elect the right experts? Especially if they elect the experts with views similar to their own.

I don't trust them to choose the best ones, but it's their country and its their right to choose the representatives they want.

Reply 25

oShahpo

Original post by Betelgeuse-

The UK have been doing this for decades and the experts just ignore the plebs. Now what?

Get other ones. Get other experts, vote for another party. If there isn't one, start a new one.
I understand the frustration when the hired experts don't deliver, but getting the public into the deep economic and political decisions is not going to deliver a good prospect either. Yes it will give the public the power they so rightly deserve, but it so often does not end well.

Reply 26

The Epicurean

Original post by Fantastic Fan

I still feel that the people should have a say in who runs the people, and the legislation no matter how benevolent they may be.

Hobbes dictatorship is attained through a mutual handing over of power to the dictator by the people. I assume it might entail some form of election.

Is that very similar to a capitalistic meritocracy? Whereby experts in a given field usually excel and see proceeds of their knowledge and skills?

It depends, but I suppose it could be. One could still have some form of technocracy with an electoral process.

Original post by oShahpo

There is no reason one couldn't have some form of system which entails voting. Maybe we could have the same process of electing a Prime Minister, but instead of having the Prime minister choosing from among other politicians who will become secretary of state for education and whatnot (like Michael Gove who has no background in education or George Osborne who is a history graduate who is our Chancellor of the Exchequer), the Prime Minister would instead have to choose someone from the actual field and with the necessary expertise.

I think it is a concept that can be toyed around with. I don't see why we can't blend our electoral democracy with some form of technocracy.

Reply 27

Ladymusiclover

It's not perfect but I'll take it. Better than some countries. Zimbabwe for example.

Reply 28

oShahpo

Original post by The Epicurean

Hobbes dictatorship is attained through a mutual handing over of power to the dictator by the people. I assume it might entail some form of election.

It depends, but I suppose it could be. One could still have some form of technocracy with an electoral process.

There is no reason one couldn't have some form of system which entails voting. Maybe we could have the same process of electing a Prime Minister, but instead of having the Prime minister choosing from among other politicians who will become secretary of state for education and whatnot (like Michael Gove who has no background in education or George Osborne who is a history graduate who is our Chancellor of the Exchequer), the Prime Minister would instead have to choose someone from the actual field and with the necessary expertise.

I think it is a concept that can be toyed around with. I don't see why we can't blend our electoral democracy with some form of technocracy.

Which I would very, very much support.

Reply 29

DorianGrayism

Original post by Ladymusiclover

It's not perfect but I'll take it. Better than some countries. Zimbabwe for example.

Lol.

Comparing ourselves to Zimbabwe. Oh dear.

Reply 30

Ladymusiclover

Original post by DorianGrayism

Lol.

Comparing ourselves to Zimbabwe. Oh dear.

I'm basically saying we should be grateful that we have the vote and chance to vote. There's so many people that wish they could have the opportunities that we have.

Reply 31

oShahpo

Original post by Mathemagicien

It depends on the system. Some technocratic systems that have been proposed have a meritocratic voting system, where the size of your vote depends somewhat on your political and economic knowledge, and/or your general intelligence.

I would actually oppose that for two reasons.
1- A stupid country deserves stupid leadership. A leader should be representative of the population. If a stupid country was run by an intelligent elite, what you'd get is a top class of elite intelligensia, and a bottom class of unintelligent plebs, with a major rift in between, which we have experienced in the past and that never, ever ended in a good way. However, if the country was run by a true representative of the people, what you'd get is, maybe, a poor nation, but not necessarily one with a huge social rift.
2- When you let unintelligent people vote, the country, if it truly wants to progress, will feel the need to educate those people, and to make them smarter. It will also have to care for their needs. Thus the country will have to pull those people out of whatever intellectual hole they're in. In a meritocratic democracy, you just let those "idiots" do their thing and you never care about them, as they don't matter. They will never jump the gap between lack of education and proper education and what you'll get is a base of zombies that either despise the country, or feel estranged.

I do, however, agree to a kind of system whereby you vote a leadership that represents you, then let the leadership chose it's experts.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 32

Tabstercat

Democracy only works when the public is well informed. If misinformation and propaganda are rife then of course it's not going to be effective.People vote against their own interest and even common sense all the time. This referendum has demonstrated exactly that.

Reply 33

PTMalewski

I don't see how people would be well informed in democracy: political issues are too complicated and far too time consuming to make any proper decisions for normal citizens, actually amount of informations is obviously too big even for experts on certain issues.

I don't have time for further explanations, then allow my just to speak a different idea, I'm curious about you thoughs.

Imagine a system, that can be introduced using democratic procedures, and allows society to show opinions, but gives political power only to most superior living minds. I'm thinking about a very strick suffrage not for those who are allowed to vote, but for those who are allowed to be ellected.

Imagine a political system, in which every citizen can vote just like today, but every candidate for parliament must have superior IQ level (130 or above), must have at least a master degree, and must pass additional parliamentary exam, that would check his or her knowledge and basic skills of logic, economy, sociology, politics, and other areas crucial in politics. Also, there would be a regulation, that each minister must have a degree in subject strongly related to his or her department or in cybernetics, while Prime Minister would have a degree in cybernetics, philosophy, or any.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 34

username1204031

Original post by Mathemagicien

There used to be lots of criticism, back in the (worst) days of the Euro Crisis, when people were complaining about economists and central bankers making decisions about printing money and stuff, when they were unelected. How the hell can you expect the public to elect a competant economist? It seems some people want to democratise every aspect of life. Some day there will be calls to democratise science - maybe some day we'll have referendums on whether or not evolution occurred.