huffingtonpost.com — "During one of the debates I mentioned that my fellow Democratic candidates scare me. Hillary's speech last week to the Take Back America conference gives me yet another reason to be afraid." - a column from Sen. Mike Gravel
Jun 25, 2007 View in Crawl 4
nonzionistJun 26, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061907A">http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061907A</a>+(William Buckley once said "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty.")+"Democracy" means "rule by the people". It does NOT necessarily mean "elections". There are other, BETTER, ways to put the government in the hands of the people. In fact, elections often HAMPER and retard democracy -- instead of "government by the people", we have government by those best able to MANIPULATE the people. And the most effective manipulators are the entrenched politicians and the oligarchs who control the big media.The alternative I advocate is "aleatory democracy". I would replace or supplement our sham "elections" with RANDOM SELECTION from a pool of qualified volunteers. In other words, I'd extend the well-tested juror selection system into the political arena. Qualification might take the form of a set percentage of signatures, with signatures against the candidate being deducted from signatures in favor of the candidate.Random selection would AUTOMATICALLY result in proportional representation, and would make it possible for HONEST and intelligent people to get back into politics. It would automatically abolish all of the evils that flow from the "election" circus -- campaign financing, corruption, the divisive demagogy, the lies, the cynical promises, the justifiable voter apathy and disgust. It would bring excitement back into politics.The government, being a product of mere chance, would lack the appearance of "moral authority" that "electoral democracy" conveys. It would be seen as NOTHING MORE than a pragmatic device, and so its ability to justify doing damage would be reduced. Aleatory democracy can be introduced gradually, first for selecting officials for peripheral or newly created offices, then for offices that are currently filled by appointment, then finally, for offices that are currently elective. Perhaps a tv lottery program could be used to introduce the concept: E.g., the reward for winning would be an opportunity to serve as ombudsman for a month.To see why aleatory democracy is a good idea, just contrast the populatity of Congress with the popularity of the lottery. The one is seen as dirty, something to avoid, and the other as clean.Randomness is an expression of humility. We do NOT know everything -- so we flip a coin. We do NOT know the future -- so we let God decide. We do NOT control or even know our politicians, we do NOT know whether they will keep their promises, and we do not have the time to sort through their lies and demagogic distortions. So it is simply not POSSIBLE for us to choose wisely. It is dishonest to pretend othewise, and we are sick of such lies. A system based on chance would be more honest and thus cleaner. It would enable us to admit our inadequacy up-front -- and guard against it, using recall elections when problems develop. We could finally stop playing god."Aleatory democracy" is an aspect of what I call "automatic government" -- government that keeps the politicians out and relies mainly on UNIVERSALIST mechanisms. Other examples include: * the American "Social Security" system* a fixed-rate national sales tax* a fixed-amount negative income-tax * a general tariff (same rate applies to all goods)<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_downside_of_democracy#c7297094">http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_downside_of_democracy#c7297094</a>
macenvyJun 26, 2007
I wish I could digg you up twice. I'd never read that before, and it's amazing how concisely that sums up the situation.
nevinw11Jun 26, 2007
@dwiezel...she's super freaky YA
drdabblesJun 26, 2007
Oh my God. I just uttered words I thought I would never say. I agree with Mike Gravel. ~*shudder*~This is basically the point I've been making to people lately. If the dems or republicans REALLY cared about our civil liberties, then surely they would not have renewed the patriot act. I mean, the first time they could claim to not have fully understood its reach (after all, we know they don't actually read any of these propositions)...but the second time around? C'mon!Bottom line, don't effing patronize us. The vast majority of us are not morons. We see your lies, and we're getting tired of them. From the cheap accents at each rally, to the funding of a corrupt cabinet.
waterdragonJun 26, 2007
Have you never heard of Ron Paul?
xorpJun 26, 2007
lichme speaks the truth. Has knows he has no chance of winning so he go ups and says whatever the hell he wants. I love hearing his stuff since it's all true.
weaksnycJun 26, 2007
I'm on your side, guys. Your votes for Gravel are meaningless. Telling yourself that you are inciting change is not actually inciting change. He won't make the ticket anyway, so it's a moot point, I'm just saying if you want the power to make your vote count, pick one of the four candidates that have at least somewhat of a chance and decide which best fits your views. I agree with you that the system sucks. I'm not saying to fall in line, either. I'm just being realistic.
supermosesJul 4, 2007
Gravel is not that type of politician. He's the one who made the Pentagon Papers public and ended the draft by doing a 5 month filibuster. He has integrity.
observant1Nov 2, 2007
bill clinton hands a ton of technology to china and in a clinton bush baton pass they rammed NAFTA through (Not Allowed Freedom To Approve!) trade and border issues that should have been put to a vote. Corporate welfare handouts so companies can leave the country making millions of workers unemployed, hillary on the board of directors to WALMART 6 years importing Chinese slave made consumer goods bankrupting American manufacturers unemploying millions more, WALMART building a superport in Mexico for Chinese super-cargo ships to unemploy US longshoremen and truckers also bringing in more and faster. RUDY GIULIANI's lawfirm making millions representing CINTRA from Spain building the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY for transporting these slave made goods. (notice he's ex mayor of NYC and hillary the rep for NY state). RICK PERRY governor of Texas is land grabbing for this NAFTA superhighway. BUSH tries and fails 3-4 times to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants then hands the keys to US highways over to 100 Mexican trucking companies out of spite.people need to understand they are all business partners in TREASON !!
observant1Nov 2, 2007
bill clinton hands a ton of technology to china and in a clinton bush baton pass they rammed NAFTA through (Not Allowed Freedom To Approve!) trade and border issues that should have been put to a vote. Corporate welfare handouts so companies can leave the country making millions of workers unemployed, hillary on the board of directors to WALMART 6 years importing Chinese slave made consumer goods bankrupting American manufacturers unemploying millions more, WALMART building a superport in Mexico for Chinese super-cargo ships to unemploy US longshoremen and truckers also bringing in more and faster. RUDY GIULIANI's lawfirm making millions representing CINTRA from Spain building the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY for transporting these slave made goods. (notice he's ex mayor of NYC and hillary the rep for NY state). RICK PERRY governor of Texas is land grabbing for this NAFTA superhighway. BUSH tries and fails 3-4 times to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants then hands the keys to US highways over to 100 Mexican trucking companies out of spite.people need to understand they are all business partners in TREASON !!