[kvraghavaiah]

Government

The primary requisite of government of a country is that it should wish and work for the well being of its people effectively. To meet the requirement of looking after people, leaders in the government need not be purely elected by the people. It is enough if the government is good irrespective of how it is formed.



If the leaders are elected by the people directly, it requires that people of the country and constitution should be wise enough and the procedure of election should be good enough to elect good leaders. If people are not wise enough or if the procedure of election does not concentrate on the key requirements, government will definitely fail to be good. Obviously, the present democracies are not good enough. So, the current election procedures are not proper and to some extent people are not wise enough to elect the right people as leaders.



How intelligent, observing and knowledgeable is a key person in the government decides how good is his personality and how efficient and good is he at ruling. The conventional democracy does not check for the above qualities in the political leaders. This is how the conventional democracy is failing to be good.



One of the best ways to select an appropriate person as a leader is explained below.

Selection process:

1. For nominating in elections, the candidates must meet the requirements in intelligence, observation, aptitude, assertiveness, honesty, knowledge, wishing the well being of the country and enough physical health. Nationwide competitive test for the job of a politician has to be conducted for checking the above qualities through examinations.

2. Only people qualified in the above examination will be eligible to nominate in the elections. Election of the leader from nominees by the voters sufficiently ensures that a nominee does not try to exploit the initial exam process (if it is the only process to select a leader) for his selfishness and it makes all the people be listened to by the nominees. It also ensures that a nominee who deceives (if) in the initial exam has to pass through the election process. So, the procedure till here ensures well suited nominees for leadership. But, some of the voters may not intend to elect the best person out of the nominees due to natural unavailability of complete information about the nominees and/or lack of wisdom to identify the right nominees and/or selfishness. Also, the nominees may try to exploit these drawbacks to attract the votes of different classes of people with undue promises or they may inevitably make undue promises.

3. The voting has to be in two tiers to ensure that the right person is selected as the leader. 30% of the weight has to be given to tier 1 of voting process and the remaining 70% weight to the tier 2. In the tier 1 voting, a sufficient number of intellectuals from premier educational institutions, individuals and organizations with intelligent people have to vote because they will be relatively better in identifying and choosing the right people for leadership with less self bias than the common people (Intelligent people have better character and better decision making abilities than common people due to their better observation and thinking. However, the available limited intelligence does not guarantee perfection in character and decision making always. Also, the class of voters in tier 1 may not be sufficiently aware of the common people and their needs. So, keeping the tier 1 voting weight above 30 % means over acceptance of the tier 1 election by making the overall election tier 1 critical. Also, more than 30% weight to tier 1 election puts it to more risk of being hijacked by the politicians). The number of voters in tier 1 has to be large enough not to be threatened or attracted with offers by the political parties; or it should be well guarded. In tier 2, all the general public voters have to vote. Tier 2 voting lets overcoming of glitches in the tier1 voting and makes public be listened to sufficiently by the nominees. The leader has to be finalized by accumulating the results of both the tiers of voting.



Important notes:

· Tests for intelligence and/or knowledge of nominees cannot be ignored. An intelligent politician has better knowledge and decision making skills than a more experienced but less intelligent politician. Intelligence implies character also. Experience with intelligence is a better qualification for a nominee.

· Equal voting status to all people as in the traditional voting means that wise people have to suffer for the equal status given to inferiorly decision making voters. Also, inferiorly decision making voters too suffer because of their own bad decisions in election. Bad decisions matter as good as good decisions. So, equal voting status to people does not support a very good government election. However, division of the weights percentage among the two tiers of election (It may be appropriate that tier 2 public voting can be disregarded); deciding the percentage of the total voters to be in tier 1 election needs sufficient research. The above mentioned weights percents 30 and 70 are according to the author’s limited study only.

· It is people who want government for themselves. People get affected by every government action. It is not appropriate to forcefully give a government to people that they do not want. So, any policy or process related to government should be implemented as per the like of people (majority of the people, where all the people can exist under a same government) irrespective of whether it is good or bad for them. This article is only an informative guide to possible government making. Practically many people may not like the two tier voting process as they may want equal status in voting. The existing single tier public election process may have to be taken for granted. This is not too worse to people than the two tier voting process.



Other requirements for a good government:

1. An expert advisory department can guide or help the government in deciding proper policies or orders.

Before elections, the same department can put the challenges in the country/state/unit and the solutions before voters and election candidates for their reference. This helps both voters and election candidates in decision making.

2. Just good leaders are not enough to have a good administration of the country. The administrative system should be very fine. A fine tuned administrative system needs sufficient research; and since the administration is a very huge system which changes continuously, the research needs continuation through the expert advisory department. New policies/ideas/enforcements can be tested through pilot implementations if needed.

3. Voters are carried by election advertisements and speeches. A good candidate with low spending in election may not be received well by people and a less worth candidate may be able to attract people. Even to just introduce themselves to people some money is needed. So, here money also becomes one of the eligibility criteria to compete in elections, which is not desirable. A candidate should not need to be competitive to spend money to win in elections. The responsibility of introducing a candidate to people with sufficient communication on his policies and qualities lies with the elections conducting authority. No private expenditure should be allowed for candidates’ introduction to people. This makes sure that all the eligible candidates are introduced to voters equally. Any eligible candidate will be able to compete in elections not restricted by his money spending ability. Also, voters have to be educated to not get attracted to attracting advertisements, but analyze facts about candidates.

4. Many voters have tendency to choose their best out of only the candidates who are predicted to get large portion of the votes. But, voting is meant to choose the best person, not the best out of who may win. Voting is less meaningful if voters are not voting to whom they like actually. Awareness has to be created among voters that they have to vote to whom they like irrespective of whether the candidate is going to win or not.

5. Some of the current generation candidates competing in elections think that their policies should be projected to people as completely different from other’s policies to get recognized, and then they try to convince voters that their policies are the best. Candidates have to keep in mind that it is not bad to have same policies and philosophies as the opposition. They may explain to the voters that they can execute the same policies more efficiently than others, if they can really.


visit http://www.theknowledgeone.com for similar information on ideal culture, human psychology, etc needed by all.

[HydrogenBond]

I had a similar idea. But the way I would do it is with an election bee. This would be similar to a spelling bee, where the process begins at the smallest local level, allowing almost anyone to participate in the first round of preliminaries. The local champion of the preliminaries will then be assisted by the first 5-6 runners up of his local bee. The assistants will let by-gones be by-gone, and work as a team to prep their local champion for the regional bee. This gives the champion a wider range of ideas via the best ideas of his local team. The winner of each regional, is then assisted by the first 5-6 runners up, who now work as a team, which enter the county bee, etc. The champion of the entire process will not only become the leader, but he will have gone though a long process of education having been supported by higher and higher quality team mates, each of which is a product of support and prep.

If this was for president, everyone could run at the preliminaries, with the final bee winner the president. It would make an excellent reality TV series, with the Joe public stuck to the TV learning a lot about the important questions of their time.

[kvraghavaiah]

HydrogenBond, on 02 September 2010 - 04:45 PM, said:

I had a similar idea. But the way I would do it is with an election bee. This would be similar to a spelling bee, where the process begins at the smallest local level, allowing almost anyone to participate in the first round of preliminaries. The local champion of the preliminaries will then be assisted by the first 5-6 runners up of his local bee. The assistants will let by-gones be by-gone, and work as a team to prep their local champion for the regional bee. This gives the champion a wider range of ideas via the best ideas of his local team. The winner of each regional, is then assisted by the first 5-6 runners up, who now work as a team, which enter the county bee, etc. The champion of the entire process will not only become the leader, but he will have gone though a long process of education having been supported by higher and higher quality team mates, each of which is a product of support and prep.

If this was for president, everyone could run at the preliminaries, with the final bee winner the president. It would make an excellent reality TV series, with the Joe public stuck to the TV learning a lot about the important questions of their time.

Hydrogen bond,
I used to have ideas like you are expressing at my childhood. We have to look for practicable, optimal solutions. I appreciate your idea, but you think in multiple dimentions. Will the process explained by me be inferior to your long process(some election bee you mentioned it as) in any way in providing a quality person at reasonable cost and time? it is actually simpler. let us not make things complicated when not needed.

[HydrogenBond]

Another idea, at least with the USA, would be a fourth branch of government of the people. Back at the beginning when the US was set up, they did not have the same logistics we have today. Most people were farmers, the country was huge and transportation was horseback. It made sense to elect representatives who would try to be the voice of their constituency. Farmer Joe did not have the time or means to get involved and shuttle to the capital. Nowadays, we have TV, internet to connect well informed people. They don't really need a single voice to talk for them. But they still need managers to put their will into motion and action.

The fourth branch would be made up of citizens from all over who are interested. I would use an objectivity test one can take as many times as needed. This will assure one is not a trained horse. Rathe one has demonstrated they thought about this. The fourth public branch will set the agenda, while the other three branches iron out the details and manages it.

Government is suppose to be the servant (public servant) not the master.

If the economy is weak, individual common sense says no common sense household will use this as an opportunity to create debt and spend like a drunken sailor on saturday. The fourth branch may says, we collectively have to cut back at home, so you cut back and iron that out. During goods times, when the people are also spending, now is the time to spend on extras.

With the fourth branch of government I would give them the power to tax the government. We need the government servant to be functional but not wasteful. To make sure you get the best people you need to restrict how much the servant has to spend for tasks. The tax revenue can go to pay off debt or tax breaks.

For example, say you had two mothers throwing a party for their children. We give one $500 and the other only $50. Who needs to be more resourceful to pull off a good party? The one with $500 can be an airhead and hire a caterer. The other has to use talent to make it a fun time. She has to know how to cook and make party favors. High government budgets means hot air heads are able to create the illusion of competence. They just get others to do it at any cost and take credit. But on $50, they need to be very resourceful. This will discourage one type of person and will attract another who is more up for the challenge.

[C1ay]

HydrogenBond, on 05 September 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

With the fourth branch of government I would give them the power to tax the government. We need the government functional but not wasteful. To make sure you get the best people you need to restrict how much it has to spend for the tasks. The tax revenue can go to pay off debt or tax breaks.

This single concept wholly demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the structure and function of the government. The government has no revenue except for the taxes it collects from the people. Letting the people tax the government merely enables the people to increase taxes on themselves because that's where the government would get the money to pay the taxes they imposed on it. Talk about a circle jerk!

The 3 branch system works well. It needs a few adjustments to be a better fit for a larger population with better communications abilities than those that existed at the founding of the country. Representation had become incredibly diluted with the increased population and limited seating in the house but a new branch is not the answer. More districts or subdistricts with their own representatives would suffice.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Clay,

C1ay, on 05 September 2010 - 11:09 AM, said:

The government has no revenue except for the taxes it collects from the people.

Thats not quite correct if you consider the sovereign rights of the executive tier of government.

Import/export duties and sovereign market funds point to a multitude of ways that governments can collect extra revenue.

[Qfwfq]

HydrogenBond, on 05 September 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

Another idea, at least with the USA, would be a fourth branch of government of the people.

It's been more than two millenia that three fundamental parts of a state's power have been commonly recognized, regardless of how or whether they are separated or divided between bodies, offices or whatnot. Aristotle called them deliberative (currently called legislative), executive and judiciary and they are commonly called the three powers of state, with the US constitution heterodoxically calling them branches of government. Nobody since the fourth century BC has come up with any other division into equally fundamental parts of which a state's authority consists.

It seems you are essentially suggesting an administrative body that oversees public finance and has deliberative power, even over the executive. You want participation in it to be open to any concerned citizens but if it has deliberative power there should be criteria against the risk of some minority misusing it. Not so easy to sort out.

[lawcat]

Hello Friends and Foes


This is my first time at the new site. It appears cleaner, and faster. So that's good. But the layout is new to my eyes so I'll just have to adjust.

Congrats to Tormod and all involved with this move. Good job overall.

___


To OP, I have two comments:

1. You make a fatal assumption that proper appointment mechanism is the sufficient condition for good government. But this is not the case. It is even arguable whether it is a necessary condition. But assuming that it is a necessary condition, your proposed mechanism does not solve the whole problem; rather, it may get us simply closer to solution because it is after all just a necessary condition.

2. I disagree with the two-tier-voting proposal because it violates the basis of modern democracy: egalitarianism--one citizen one vote. I also disagree with the testing. Leaders need to be good in decision making, and decision making comes from experience, and decision making is situational--it can not be tested. I disagree with testng on elitism grounds as well.

So all in all, this proposal is not well researched or thought out.



Finally, as Qfwfq pointed out, there is already a fourth branch of government--the administrative branch. Yes, they are under the executive branch for appointments, and sometimes under legislative, but they have discretion to administer the state matters, to interpret law, and judge.

[Tormod]

lawcat, on 10 September 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

This is my first time at the new site. It appears cleaner, and faster. So that's good. But the layout is new to my eyes so I'll just have to adjust.

Congrats to Tormod and all involved with this move. Good job overall.

I'm a sucker for compliments so THANKS!

[HydrogenBond]

When the government collects taxes, it uses that for various purposes. All those employed by the government, are paid by the tax payer. These workers also need to pay federal taxes, which then goes back to the government. This secondary recycled tax is the tax money the fourth branch collects. This allows the fourth branch to have an impact on federal employment, the same way the government can impact the employment in the private sector.

The way it is set up now, is sort of a trick pony. As an example, instead of paying the current federal tax rate, I agree to pay an even higher rate of 99% to myself. This allows me to appear like I am doing something altruistic, while escaping accountability. The fourth branch can simply tie its tax rate to what the government sets; taste of its own medicine.

What would happen if we did this; hypothetically. Firstly, administration would be cheaper without any change in the tax rates of the federal employees. But since this cuts into the bottom line, it impacts operations. One way to increase revenue is to reduce employment or wages to offset the tax revenue that is lost. This is a good lesson on economic principles and taxation.

[kvraghavaiah]

lawcat, on 10 September 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

Hello Friends and Foes


This is my first time at the new site. It appears cleaner, and faster. So that's good. But the layout is new to my eyes so I'll just have to adjust.

Congrats to Tormod and all involved with this move. Good job overall.

___


To OP, I have two comments:

1. You make a fatal assumption that proper appointment mechanism is the sufficient condition for good government. But this is not the case. It is even arguable whether it is a necessary condition. But assuming that it is a necessary condition, your proposed mechanism does not solve the whole problem; rather, it may get us simply closer to solution because it is after all just a necessary condition.

2. I disagree with the two-tier-voting proposal because it violates the basis of modern democracy: egalitarianism--one citizen one vote. I also disagree with the testing. Leaders need to be good in decision making, and decision making comes from experience, and decision making is situational--it can not be tested. I disagree with testng on elitism grounds as well.

So all in all, this proposal is not well researched or thought out.



Finally, as Qfwfq pointed out, there is already a fourth branch of government--the administrative branch. Yes, they are under the executive branch for appointments, and sometimes under legislative, but they have discretion to administer the state matters, to interpret law, and judge.

Hi,
1.Plese read the appendix points where i mentioned other necessariry conditions for a good government. Good appointment is not alone enough.
2. two tier voting violates the existing democracy. Ofcourse, every new method violates old improper methods. What is the need to follow an inefficient method.
3.One man one vote means....good people have to suffer for the equal staus given to inferiorly decisive voters. Foolish decisions will matter as good as good decisons in that case. So, for a perfect election..one man one vote only policy does not work.
However, practically many people are against two tier election process as they want equal status in voting(inspite they dont have equal brain). Convincing they may not be possible. The existing single tier election process may have to be taken for granted, and it is not a big loss over two tier process.
4. Experience may give good decisive power; but intelligence with experience gives far better decisive power. So, tests for intelligence and/or knowledge can not be ignored.

Please do not make a negative comment with out researching on what is being said.

[HydrogenBond]

The government collects taxes and then trickles the money back down. I like the idea of the citizens having more say on how this occurs. One interesting but non binding experiment, along this line, is as follows;

At income tax time, each tax payer files their tax returns. Along with the tax return, the government will send a chart that outlines the major government expenditure blocks, and the amount each of these receives. What the tax payer does is distribute their owed taxes, on the chart, as they would like their money spent.

For example, say I will pay $1000 taxes. I look at the chart and decide to give $500 in the social security box, $100 in the military box, $100 to education, $100 for pork barrel, $100 for NASA, and $100 for social programs, until my $1000 worth of taxes is entered into the table.

Next, the IRS adds all the totals of all the taxpayers and publishes how tax payers would spend side by side with the government budgets. Then we talk.

I tend to think both will be fairly close but with some interesting differences.

[Chaz]

I must say I mostly agree with the OP on this. Why should those who are incapable of making good decisions be allowed to vote? You can come up with any 'equal rights' babble you want but the truth of the matter is allowing everybody to have a say in something ESPECIALLY when the majority have no idea what they are voting on, submit to peer pressure, or just fell for a expensive political campaign that brought about the illusion of competency is just irrational. Think about it. I'm off to my Government Class so I will finish this later.

[kvraghavaiah]

Chaz, on 07 February 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

I must say I mostly agree with the OP on this. Why should those who are incapable of making good decisions be allowed to vote? You can come up with any 'equal rights' babble you want but the truth of the matter is allowing everybody to have a say in something ESPECIALLY when the majority have no idea what they are voting on, submit to peer pressure, or just fell for a expensive political campaign that brought about the illusion of competency is just irrational. Think about it. I'm off to my Government Class so I will finish this later.

[phision]

Chaz, on 07 February 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

I must say I mostly agree with the OP on this. Why should those who are incapable of making good decisions be allowed to vote? You can come up with any 'equal rights' babble you want but the truth of the matter is allowing everybody to have a say in something ESPECIALLY when the majority have no idea what they are voting on, submit to peer pressure, or just fell for a expensive political campaign that brought about the illusion of competency is just irrational. Think about it. I'm off to my Government Class so I will finish this later.

The people you would have excluded from the electoral process would be reliant on the allowed voters to respect their needs! This is a major issue as these are probably going to be the citizens with the greatest needs.

Once you start restricting the the eligibility to vote: how would you stop the restricted electorate from further reducing their number, time and time again until you end up with an oligarchy or even autocracy? Democracy has to be favourable to this slipper slope!