The modern election systems are fundamentally flawed

What's worse is that there is no solution. You cannot change human nature. The problem is, is that a countries leader needs to understand economics back-to-front and know what is the best option for the country. Not the voters. But this is impossible as the leaders want to stay elected at the next election, so they comform to the standard 'Accompish what the majority tell's you, no matter what'.

Humans care a lot about there own problems and less about others(including there country) and therefore as long as one of the election candidates pledges to fix all of there problems, they will be elected, on top of this I would go as far to say that 85% of voters don't properly understand there own country's economic policy. I know that here in the UK I had to explain the term 'Quantative Easing' several times even though its explanation was everywhere at the time.

In an ideal world, all leaders would do what is best for there country at the current time and not worry about being relected, but of course they want to stay elected as there are numerous perks to it.

Also, the opposition, whose job is to oppose every policy that the elected party thinks of and try to get there own way can potentially ruin countries. The USA almost defaulted because the GOP and Democrats couldn't agree on a solution.

We cannot change it so only people who understand the policies can vote as that is unfair and will cause widespread riots and there will probably be a revolution: There are no solutions and it will continute endlessly.

Thoughts?

That is probably why I am an anarchist-socialist. I don't believe in governments or politicians or other coercive institutions because they are all corrupt and self-serving.

That is the problem with a lot of politicians. Sometimes, the best thing for the country... the responsible thing... is the tough thing. Meaning, sometimes short-term suffering is the best thing for long-term prosperity.

But that guy will never get elected.

Why?

Because if he says that it is going to take some tough times in order to prosper in the future, nobody wants to hear that. It would be unpopular. His opponent will promise that he will do all of these great things if he gets elected... and he will get elected because he's not being realistic and he's just feeding the American people a line of BS.

This is why I'm against bipartisanship and re-elections. ChampionoChumps

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]This is why I'm against bipartisanship and re-elections. Moriarity_

That is probably why I am an anarchist-socialist. I don't believe in governments or politicians or other coercive institutions because they are all corrupt and self-serving.

pariah3

I agree with the topic title. Outside of that I'm not so so sure.

[QUOTE="pariah3"]

That is probably why I am an anarchist-socialist. I don't believe in governments or politicians or other coercive institutions because they are all corrupt and self-serving.

chessmaster1989

In a better world doing away with things such as the electorial college and letting a true popular vote happen would work. People would not be able to hide behind a forced vote of two sides. However you would have say.. thousands maybe trying to be voted in for say president. Then even if it got down to say.. 50.. you would have total chaos and maybe wind up with a president who does not even have 5% of the nation behind them. I am for a 3rd independant party that is officially sanctioned in the EC like the democrats and republicans but it would eventually become just like the issue we got now. So yeah modern election systems are crappy in many places but maybe not all. But there is no solution.CreasianDevaili

Sounds like the OP is against democracy. Democratic -republics aren't perfect but their better then the alternatives.Diablo-B

I'm oddly enough see this thing as more and more of the collective humankind zeitgiest.

With the technology we live with everyday, we are used to instant gratification, or at the very least things to happen quickly.

What took 4 days to drive from NYC to LA now takes 6 hrs by plane. a phone call, IM, text message all instantaneous. your checking account, credit, etc. etc. you could go on.

I think people - the general masses - expect the same with their bigger political/economic/social problems. As though these things can be changed with the flip of a switch.

and politicians are ever eager to indulge in this as it's playing the popularity card.

Totally agree with the original poster. You've got a country full of people who max out as many credit cards as they can get their hands on, and they elect politicians who have run us 15 trillion dollars into debt - and their big debt solution is that over the next ten years, we'll only run up an additional 10 trillion of debt - as opposed to the 12 trillion originally planned. All spending cuts to take place at some indeterminate point in the distant future of course. And as soon as the next batch of politicians get elected they'll ignore every last big of that and spend like there's no tomorrow - just like they always have.

It's precisely the government you'd expect to be elected by voters who get a pre-approved Visa card and take a cash advance to make the minimum payment on the other 5 cards they've already got maxed out.

Politics is a huge subject that, along with economics and history, takes a couple years of fairly careful study to gain an adequate understanding of. Yet people base their vote on a 30 second campaign commercial, or which candidate made the best quip in a debate.

People get the government they deserve, that's for sure.

Perhaps the problem is not the election system, but rather the ammoral, weak, sissy society it comes from.

We've become a pain-averse, irresponsible society that looks to govt like our mother, to provide us with comfort, sustenance and succor in all our daily needs and wants.

Not surprising we tend to vote for the politician that promises us the most goodies and the least pain.

Perhaps the problem is not the election system, but rather the ammoral, weak, sissy society it comes from.

We've become a pain-averse, irresponsible society that looks to govt like our mother, to provide us with comfort, sustenance and succor in all our daily needs and wants.

Not surprising we tend to vote for the politician that promises us the most goodies and the least pain.

collegeboy64

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Perhaps the problem is not the election system, but rather the ammoral, weak, sissy society it comes from.

We've become a pain-averse, irresponsible society that looks to govt like our mother, to provide us with comfort, sustenance and succor in all our daily needs and wants.

Not surprising we tend to vote for the politician that promises us the most goodies and the least pain.

Crunchy_Nuts

What I don't understand is why government's spend more than there total revenue. If a country's government can only get 4 trillion over 5 years, why should It devise a plan that see's it spend 7 trillion over the same period? It doesn't make any sense to me.DeX2010

[QUOTE="DeX2010"] What I don't understand is why government's spend more than there total revenue. If a country's government can only get 4 trillion over 5 years, why should It devise a plan that see's it spend 7 trillion over the same period? It doesn't make any sense to me.markop2003

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="DeX2010"] What I don't understand is why government's spend more than there total revenue. If a country's government can only get 4 trillion over 5 years, why should It devise a plan that see's it spend 7 trillion over the same period? It doesn't make any sense to me.DeX2010

[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Perhaps the problem is not the election system, but rather the ammoral, weak, sissy society it comes from.

We've become a pain-averse, irresponsible society that looks to govt like our mother, to provide us with comfort, sustenance and succor in all our daily needs and wants.

Not surprising we tend to vote for the politician that promises us the most goodies and the least pain.

DeX2010

I'm not talking about education. I'm talking about societal virtue. Our society (at least here in the US) used to stress individualism, self-reliance, the freedom to succeed, or fail. Now we are encouraged to think of ourselves as members of a group and to use our vote to promote the interests of the group(s) we are a member of.

Perhaps if we were not encouraged to think of the govt as having a role in so many aspects of our lives, we would be more willing to vote for politicians that promised to operate the govt, in its few basic roles in society, according to principle, rather than on how many goodies they promise.

Totally agree with the original poster. You've got a country full of people who max out as many credit cards as they can get their hands on, and they elect politicians who have run us 15 trillion dollars into debt - and their big debt solution is that over the next ten years, we'll only run up an additional 10 trillion of debt - as opposed to the 12 trillion originally planned. All spending cuts to take place at some indeterminate point in the distant future of course. And as soon as the next batch of politicians get elected they'll ignore every last big of that and spend like there's no tomorrow - just like they always have.

It's precisely the government you'd expect to be elected by voters who get a pre-approved Visa card and take a cash advance to make the minimum payment on the other 5 cards they've already got maxed out.

Politics is a huge subject that, along with economics and history, takes a couple years of fairly careful study to gain an adequate understanding of. Yet people base their vote on a 30 second campaign commercial, or which candidate made the best quip in a debate.

People get the government they deserve, that's for sure.

Jackc8

Actually, credit card debt is down right now, people have been saving more and paying off debt since the crisis hit and running up less debt afterwards. If you have an economy where 70% of GDP is consumer spending, then you need healthy levels of debt. Without that debt consumers spend less (as we have been witnessing), there are fewer jobs (as we have been witnessing), which means lagging consumer spending (as we have been witnessing), and poor a economic outlook (as we have been witnessing). This is a typically fallacy of conservative thought, that every sector of the economy always needs to act in a fiscally conservative manner. However, when the economy starts to take a downturn (as it always does), if government, business, and consumers all act in a fiscally conservative manner then it will only exacerbate that downturn and make everything worse for everyone.

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="DeX2010"] What I don't understand is why government's spend more than there total revenue. If a country's government can only get 4 trillion over 5 years, why should It devise a plan that see's it spend 7 trillion over the same period? It doesn't make any sense to me.DeX2010

No it shouldn't, but two unpaid wars, a tax cut that was offset by borrowing, and a drug prescription plan that was fiscally unadvisable tend to have that effect.

[QUOTE="DeX2010"][QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] This. I believe if that standard of voters increased then the current election system wouldn't be much of a problem. One of Democracy's greatest strength can also be a major weakness - EVERYONE has a vote.collegeboy64

I'm not talking about education. I'm talking about societal virtue. Our society (at least here in the US) used to stress individualism, self-reliance, the freedom to succeed, or fail. Now we are encouraged to think of ourselves as members of a group and to use our vote to promote the interests of the group(s) we are a member of.

Perhaps if we were not encouraged to think of the govt as having a role in so many aspects of our lives, we would be more willing to vote for politicians that promised to operate the govt, in its few basic roles in society, according to principle, rather than on how many goodies they promise.

[QUOTE="DeX2010"][QUOTE="markop2003"] It makes sense for a developed nation to have a deficit as the low interest rate and strong economy means the loan intrest rate is lower than the economic growth. This makes it more profitable to run with a deficit than with a balanced budget.markop2003

Not exactly. The idea is that you want to maintain a healthy deficit, but not an out of control one. The way that is supposed to get done is to tax higher and spend less when the economy is booming, and spend more and tax lower when it starts to turn downwards. However, the political realities never allow for this to happen, as the question is never one about doing different things at different times but rather doing either one or the other.

Nothing works as good as in theory or in ideals. The often ugly reality of how politics get worked out is just one testament to this. It also spreads to economics, business, education, social circles, and just about anything that involves interaction between people. But even understanding fiscal or monetary policy and the appropriate effect differing policies would have is very difficult. In general, economics is affected by an unknowable amount of different variables that shift constantly, and feedback on whether policies are working or not is very much after the fact and prone to confounding variables. Political haze in such matters is not only merely fueled by politicians with agendas; it's also because the "real" situation is always very unclear. Refer to Harry Truman's joke about the one armed/handed economist for modern context.

That is probably why I am an anarchist-socialist. I don't believe in governments or politicians or other coercive institutions because they are all corrupt and self-serving.

pariah3

In all honesty I think maybe 10% of the people who vote are qualified to make that decision. The other 90% are either blindly following party lines or they are blindly voting for whoever sold them the best looking line of BS.

The people who actually investigate and research who they are voting for are in the vast minority. I say we start making people qualify to vote instead of it being a birth right and after doing that we go to a direct election system where only the people that qualified are allowed to make such a decision.

I don't bother educating myself and as a result would not care at all if i was stripped of my right to vote in favor of others that care enough to do so.

Enlightened dictators are the way to go.