Time for a Demarchy Senate

[ramadawn]

Instead of an elected senate, lets give Canadians a REAL voice in their governance and create a Demarchy Senate.

Find out more here on Reddit

The failure of elective democracy; A proposal for statistical selection : politics

 

[damngrumpy]

Time to begin the process of getting rid of the Senate altogether why reform what is a waste
of time period

 

[ramadawn]

Time to begin the process of getting rid of the Senate altogether why reform what is a waste
of time period

No every parliamentary body needs a second house to provide a check to its power. "IE sober second thought". Its the only way the protect from "group think".

The problem with the senate is it's just a "reward club" for the prime minister's friends. It needs to become a body that reflects the views of the people. Hence why I think it needs to become a body of "regular people". Everyday Canadians, who serve single year terms of serve to provide a reality check to any laws the government wishes to pass.

 

[captain morgan]

An elected Senate will reform that bastard double quick

 

[Locutus]

Instead of an elected senate, lets give Canadians a REAL voice in their governance and create a Demarchy Senate.

Find out more here om Reddit

The failure of elective democracy; A proposal for statistical selection : politics

Hey new friend...did you know you're listed as a spammer at SORBS? Just uh, letting you know in-advance lest something 'happens'.

 

[ramadawn]

An elected Senate will reform that bastard double quick

Not elected. Just puts more politicians, more parties and more corrupt money into politics. We need citizens chosen by statistical selection. regular people to look at the bills government wishes to pass and say "no" or "yes". In short a citizen reality check.

Hey new friend...did you know you're listed as a spammer at SORBS? Just uh, letting you know in-advance lest something 'happens'.

That just silly. I'm not trying sell anything. Just trying to promote a political idea. I know that is odd for a political forum. But hey go figure

 

[L Gilbert]

Meh. I'd prefer a direct democracy with a republic style gov't.

 

[ramadawn]

Meh. I'd prefer a direct democracy with a republic style gov't.

Demarchy is the most DIRECT form of democracy one can have. After all what is more direct? Placing a representative sample of regular people in power for a year. Or voting for professional politicians who are not really listening to the people anyways?

read before you disagree


The failure of elective democracy; A proposal for statistical selection : politics

 

[Nick Danger]

Any alternative to the system we currently have is appealing at this point. We have a serious disconnect between our elected officials and those who elect them, as once in office our MLAs/MPs are obliged to place party policy ahead of the needs and wishes of the electorate. The trick with any serious reformative measures is gaining support within the government itself, as serious reform would invariably involve the pruning of a huge amount of self-serving deadwood. We would, in effect, be asking a significant percentage of government to take an active part in plotting their own demise. It has been suggested that a percentage of independent members large enough to sway the vote in provincial and/or federal proceedings would be a big step towards returning a level of public accountability to government.

 

[Locutus]

That just silly. I'm not trying sell anything. Just trying to promote a political idea. I know that is odd for a political forum. But hey go figure

Oh, you know how the internet can be eh. Silly this and silly that. But never the less, you are there.

But have at the politics and such. It's fun here. Wear a cup if you're sensitive.

But still gotta wonder...nah, I'm probably just over reacting. Must be a mistake or dynamic IP or something.

Must be.

Have a nice day. :smile:

 

[L Gilbert]

Demarchy is the most DIRECT form of democracy one can have. After all what is more direct?

Swiss gov't. It can't blow its nose unless the Swiss people say it can.

Placing a representative sample of regular people in power for a year.

On the surface, that looks ok, too.

read before you disagree


The failure of elective democracy; A proposal for statistical selection : politics

I read a different source, but thanks.

Any alternative to the system we currently have is appealing at this point. We have a serious disconnect between our elected officials and those who elect them, as once in office our MLAs/MPs are obliged to place party policy ahead of the needs and wishes of the electorate. The trick with any serious reformative measures is gaining support within the government itself, as serious reform would invariably involve the pruning of a huge amount of self-serving deadwood. We would, in effect, be asking a significant percentage of government to take an active part in plotting their own demise. It has been suggested that a percentage of independent members large enough to sway the vote in provincial and/or federal proceedings would be a big step towards returning a level of public accountability to government.

Actually it's more like a disconnect between the people we vote for and those that get portfolios.

 

[ramadawn]

Remember

I am not suggesting we replace the entire government with statistical selection.

Just the Senate.

What better way to keep our elected officials accountable, than having to get their bills past a regular group of citizens?

 

[L Gilbert]

Remember

I am not suggesting we replace the entire government

I am.

Just the Senate.

It's a start.

What better way to keep our elected officials accountable, than having to get their bills past a regular group of citizens?

Getting them past the entire crop of voters.

 

[Nick Danger]

What better way to keep our elected officials accountable, than having to get their bills past a regular group of citizens?

Wouldn't that be adding a regulatory level to police a broken system as opposed to fixing the system itself? It's my opinion that in the eyes of the larger part of government officials, employees and contractors alike, that "government" has become synonymous with easy money. This basic self-serving motivation needs to be replaced with genuine devotion to running the country efficiently and effectively, but the people we need most are the first ones to get turned off by the idea that individual party representatives are promptly neutered by party policy.

 

[ramadawn]

I am.
It's a start.

Getting them past the entire crop of voters.

Unfortunately your last point is not supported by the facts.

There are many examples of politicians saying one thing to voters and then doing another thing. Whats worse is that time and time again the voters forget. No the government cant just be held accountable once every 5 years. It should be held accountable with every bill it tries to pass.

 

[WLDB]

Time to begin the process of getting rid of the Senate altogether why reform what is a waste
of time period

Either way we have to go through the same slow process which discourages politicians from going down that road. Opening the constitution tends to get messy. Still, Id like to see it happen. Reform or abolish makes no difference to me. The status quo is unacceptable.

 

[Goober]

Demarchy is the most DIRECT form of democracy one can have. After all what is more direct? Placing a representative sample of regular people in power for a year. Or voting for professional politicians who are not really listening to the people anyways?

read before you disagree


The failure of elective democracy; A proposal for statistical selection : politics

Democracy. Should have checked the link.

 

[BornRuff]

Remember

I am not suggesting we replace the entire government with statistical selection.

Just the Senate.

What better way to keep our elected officials accountable, than having to get their bills past a regular group of citizens?

How do you keep the group of "regular citizens" accountable?

At least in our current system, elected officials worry about keeping their job past the next election. In your system there is absolutely no accountability. They already know they are gone after a year so there is no incentive to impress anyone.

You claim this is "direct", but it seems to be very very far from direct to me. In your system I will more than likely never have a say because odds are you will never be selected. Even if you are selected, your opinion only matters for one year. The only people with real power are the people making up the "scientific formula".

 

[Nick Danger]

At least in our current system, elected officials worry about keeping their job past the next election.

So much so that it has become common, even expected, that candidates can and will say whatever it takes to garner votes. "Campaign promises" often aren't worth squat, it's just a contest to outpromise the next guy. The challenge in placing "the common man" in the senate is to find people of high ethics who are willing to take the job seriously, and not making the payscale so high that the position becomes attractive to goldiggers.

 

[BornRuff]

So much so that it has become common, even expected, that candidates can and will say whatever it takes to garner votes. "Campaign promises" often aren't worth squat, it's just a contest to outpromise the next guy. The challenge in placing "the common man" in the senate is to find people of high ethics who are willing to take the job seriously, and not making the payscale so high that the position becomes attractive to goldiggers.

Campaign promises are one thing, but we get to actually see what they do after they are elected as well.

If people lie or do a bad job and we vote for them again, that is a problem with us, not the electoral system.

It is crazy to claim that this proposal is in any way democratic when the whole point of it is that the general public can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves.