Do you believe that representative democracy is the ultimate form of government?
I think it’s a terrible form of government.
The elites figured out how to rig elections pretty much the day after they came into being.
Did you know that Napoleon and his brothers rigged elections in France?
That was 200 years ago.
Not only did they rig the elections and plebiscites, they were brazen enough to rig them with rounded number victories: 16 million to 4 million.
Forget about the fine-toothed comb.
Why bother with precision?
But even if elections weren’t rigged, why would we want a dope who knows nothing about the issues to cancel out our vote because some Boss Tweed type clown bought him a barbecue sandwich?
This is the problem we have with elections today.
Actually, it’s worse.
No longer do the elites have to mess with paid voters showing up at the polls.
With our “advanced” voting machines, the elites can remotely program the votes in with the click of a button.
The politicians will gladly help that criminality along by assuring that voter identification not be required at the polling booth.
Clearly the politicians and the elites who control them desire the system to be this way.
Since they do, what does that say about them?
What does that say about representative democracy?
This invites the question as to why politicians should be voted into office in the first place.
We don’t elect cardiologists.
We don’t elect bakers.
We don’t elect carpenters.
Instead we vote with our feet.
Instead of a formally electing someone, we actively use the people who we say offer the best service.
So why don’t we do that in politics?
Why don’t we jettison this idea of electing one guy to represent us every two to four years?
Maybe we can devise a different model in which to get things done.
What would this system look like?
To get things done any citizen could petition a professional (specialist) who has gone to school for handling that specific common function that we currently entrust to the government. Let’s say that we want to widen the intersection near our office so that it can accommodate a dedicated right hand turn.
Once that specialist is petitioned, a mechanism is set in place so that other petitioners can either join in or oppose the petition.
This petition after a certain period of time can then be adjudicated by professional judges that are agreed upon by the specialists.
In this matter, citizens can then make changes to their city or neighborhood that they feel are important and relevant.
None of these specialists or judges would be subject to being elected. They would go to school to gain expertise.
There could be specialists for schools, specialists for roads, specialists for healthcare, education, specialists for what have you.
Accordingly there would be judges for these areas of expertise.
The mayor, and the commissioners would be a thing of the past.
What would be the consequences of such a system?
What would be the upside? What would be the downside?
Theoretically, we should have greater expertise and better decision making by virtue of having specialists take care of various issues.
We trade in the bloated, corrupt jack of all trades for a lean, clean machine of expertise.
Secondly, we decide issues on their own merits, not by compromising other areas.
Currently, if we want to improve our schools, we have to give in on other issues. We can’t just improve our schools; we have to give the mayor’s buddy the concrete job for the new highway even though doing so may be a really bad idea.
So if we moved to this new system, gone would be the giant omnibus bill in which congressman can throw in their pork.
But maybe that’s not a good thing. Maybe pork and fat is good.
Maybe people need that pork to provide needed jobs that otherwise can’t be gotten.
That is something we would have to think about.
But it’s worth trying.
It’s worth trying because the current system isn’t working.
Representative democracy doesn’t work because the key weak link is the representative himself.
If the representative is bought off by corporate interests, which is what’s going on today, then democracy can’t possibly work.
Within a democracy that’s controlled by people who can present their case directly to a specialist, let’s call it presentative democracy, we might stand a better chance.
Of course, the specialists and judges can be bought off, but by decreasing their range and scope, we might be able to limit the damage they can do.
Copyright 2021 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved