Why Don't We Fix Faulty Political Systems?

[DanielBoyd]

In the business world it's quite normal to reorganise if you come to the conclusion that the way things are set up is not working well. Why doesn't this happen with political systems? Why do we stay chained to constitutions and voting systems that were thought up often hundreds of years ago in very different circumstances and simply don't work well?

 

Two simple examples:

 

- As attempts at democratic representation, both the UK consituency system and the American system spectacularly fail at giving each vote cast in an election equal value in determining who is in parliament/congress. Why are these not changed to a system that can be objectively demonstrated to be fairer?

 

- In today's complex world, some problems (e.g. global warming) can (only) be solved using high-level expertise. Why do we place these problems in the hands of politicians who understand them no better than the man in the street? If the heating in my house doesn't work I call in someone who understands heating systems, not someone who has a very strong opinion about heating systems but no knowledge of how they work. It would seem sensiblle to do the same when our planet's heating system is on the blink. So why don't we redefine what is and what is not a political issue, and give only political problems to politicians to solve (there are enough of those to keep them busy!) 

 

Could someone with knowledge of political science help me out on this one? Almost every time I open the paper I read something related to this that makes my skin crawl. 

[Vmedvil2]

This is all because not many science people and such run for office it is mainly lawyers and such. If Scientist,Engineers, and such ran for office it would remedy this problem, but all to often politics is no better than a popularity contest it is not always the person that is most fit to rule that actually rules it is the person with the most support by votes. I will ask you how many scientists and such do you know that were the most popular kid in school, well politics is no different than winning high school prom queen or king. The only way we will ever see a scientist in power is sadly if one ever grows the balls to be that Evil Genius that overthrows the planet using more advanced technology than this world currently has, but I am telling you if there is ever a scientist and such that smart it will be hell for the world to get out of enslavement by this person, I have a feeling it will be like IQ 180+ person who has common sense too. Just know whomever this person I am rooting for you, I want this species to be taught a lesson in humility by us science people and such for how long we had to listen to lesser minds lead us. There you go Daniel that is the truth as I know it.

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[LaurieAG]

The political classes make sure they look after the media moguls so they keep the population under control by feeding them mindless pap.

[Deepwater6]

Too true LG, and for good measure let's keep the media moguls in charge to a minimum. Much easier to control just a few than a healthy environment of differing opinions.

 

"I don't trust words.

I even question actions,

but never doubt patterns."

[LaurieAG]

There is also the separation of the powers problem that needs to be fixed.

 

While politicians cannot interfere in a legal system, apart from producing legislation, there is nothing to stop paid amoral agents for third parties (lawyers) trained in the legal system from interfereing in the political system. If anything lawyers should not be allowed to run for elected office while they are registered and this period should extend for 5 years after their registration ceases.

[Deepwater6]

Part of the problem appears to be Politicians can mis inform people about what is going on and still are allowed to stay in office. The media can report these made up stories as facts and make little attempt to verify the facts, of what the politician is saying. Boris Johnson is an example of a politician making facts up reported by the media but never verified in the the Brexit campaign. 

 

Boris or Coco the clown as he is now known was a journalist, before he was a politician.

I agree with you, although since I peg myself a little left of center on the political spectrum and would like to say that misleading stories only come from the far right the truth is I see it across all media outlets these days.

 

As a result I have doubts (as I think/hope many do) about the validity of news stories from any news organization. The problem with this is many people tend to believe the news outlets they identify with. I have lengthy discussions at work with co-workers who are further to the right than I am. They often preface their references to news stories with "I know it's Fox News, and they back conservatives,but...."

 

The problem with this is, if more and more people are honest with themselves and are not sure if any news story from any news organization is factual, people don't know what to believe.

 

I believe when that happens we return to a form of the Salem witch hunt days. Where if someone accuses another and enough people believe the falsehood, that person will be burned at the stake first and we'll figure out if the accusation had any basis at a later date.

[DanielBoyd]

This is all because not many science people and such run for office it is mainly lawyers and such. If Scientist,Engineers, and such ran for office it would remedy this problem, but all to often politics is no better than a popularity contest it is not always the person that is most fit to rule that actually rules it is the person with the most support by votes. I will ask you how many scientists and such do you know that were the most popular kid in school, well politics is no different than winning high school prom queen or king. The only way we will ever see a scientist in power is sadly if one ever grows the balls to be that Evil Genius that overthrows the planet using more advanced technology than this world currently has, but I am telling you if there is ever a scientist and such that smart it will be hell for the world to get out of enslavement by this person, I have a feeling it will be like IQ 180+ person who has common sense too. Just know whomever this person I am rooting for you, I want this species to be taught a lesson in humility by us science people and such for how long we had to listen to lesser minds lead us. There you go Daniel that is the truth as I know it.

 

Hi Victor

 

I'm not sure I agree entirely that potting scientists into positions of political power will solve the problem: power tends to corrupt and even in the scientific community there is power politics at play. Obviously, it probably would help if someone with some knowledge of the environment headed up the Ministry of the Environment and so forth, but that won;t change the system, which is as you say more a contest of populariy than of capability. 

 

Personally I think that the solution is more in separating the system from the actors: you have people with understanding of political systems who design the system; people with the skills to fulfill the roles in that system then do the politics. If you let politicians design their own system, the corruption of power is a major risk (whatever their background). Most commonly, all they do is ascribe themselves more power (and/or material wealth).

 

But in the current system, the politicians would have to agree to this change, which is a direct threat to their own jobs and influence, and therefore not very likely.

[DanielBoyd]

I was particularly interested as to whether how to design an effective and fair political system is part of the curriculum of Political Science studies (as designing effective organisations is in Business Studies). And of course, if not, why not?

[DanielBoyd]

Part of the problem appears to be Politicians can mis inform people about what is going on and still are allowed to stay in office. The media can report these made up stories as facts and make little attempt to verify the facts, of what the politician is saying. Boris Johnson is an example of a politician making facts up reported by the media but never verified in the the Brexit campaign. 

 

Boris or Coco the clown as he is now known was a journalist, before he was a politician.

 

Misinformation is certainly a problem in politics - always has been, with those in power twisting the truth to stay in power. But the fact that they can do this is also a result of the design of the system. So why don't we redesign it to prevent this from happening? 

 

At the moment, some countries have freer press than others, and even a free press may have a political preference that you can't always blame on the politicians. But political influence on the media certainly doesn't contribute positively to the task of politics of serving the population. So why doesn;t every country have laws to prevent this? 

 

Or the underlying question: why don;t countries separate the making of such laws from politics, since politicians obviously have their own motives on such matters?

[DanielBoyd]

I agree with you, although since I peg myself a little left of center on the political spectrum and would like to say that misleading stories only come from the far right the truth is I see it across all media outlets these days.

 

As a result I have doubts (as I think/hope many do) about the validity of news stories from any news organization. The problem with this is many people tend to believe the news outlets they identify with. I have lengthy discussions at work with co-workers who are further to the right than I am. They often preface their references to news stories with "I know it's Fox News, and they back conservatives,but...."

 

The problem with this is, if more and more people are honest with themselves and are not sure if any news story from any news organization is factual, people don't know what to believe.

 

I believe when that happens we return to a form of the Salem witch hunt days. Where if someone accuses another and enough people believe the falsehood, that person will be burned at the stake first and we'll figure out if the accusation had any basis at a later date.

 

I think a distinction is important here between topics of fact and topics of opinion. Global warming is a topic of scientific fact, where personal opinions of non-experts should not be granted influence. What to do about global warming (the priority we give it relative to other issues such as global poverty or making the rich elite richer) is a matter of opinion: there is no factual scientific answer to this question.

 

Could a solution be to make a distinction between these two types of question, give the first to the experts, and the seccond to the politicians?

[DanielBoyd]

There is also the separation of the powers problem that needs to be fixed.

 

While politicians cannot interfere in a legal system, apart from producing legislation, there is nothing to stop paid amoral agents for third parties (lawyers) trained in the legal system from interfereing in the political system. If anything lawyers should not be allowed to run for elected office while they are registered and this period should extend for 5 years after their registration ceases.

Hi Laurie

 

Separation of powers is certainly a relevant issue. Can you explain more about what you mean here? Most lawyers just have the job of executing the law for businesses and individuals. Are you referring here to the part of the legal profession that occupies itself with creating/changing constitutional law?  

[LaurieAG]

Separation of powers is certainly a relevant issue. Can you explain more about what you mean here? Most lawyers just have the job of executing the law for businesses and individuals. Are you referring here to the part of the legal profession that occupies itself with creating/changing constitutional law?  

 

Hi Daniel,

 

At the highest levels:-

 

Just consider that we have a state in Australia that is currently in the process of passing legislation to require priests to pass on any information to the police that was obtained in the confessional but at the same time this states courts are cancelling hardened criminals sentences on appeal because a lawyer broke lawyer client confidentiality and passed on relevant information to the police that resulted in the hardened criminals being conviction in the first place!

 

The judges, politicians and lawyers are also running a system in that same state where 12 year old girls, who are married to much older men, say they consented to sex with their husbands even when the states age of consent is 16, so the husband is not prosecuted.

 

That's the problem with either direct corruption or absolute incompetence, either way people get hurt, the innocent get molested and the true price to society is the same in the long run regardless.

 

Why would you bother talking to people without integrity as they all happily eat this 'sh*t sandwich' without question.

[LaurieAG]

Also read the Australia Act 1986 and the Irish Constitution.

 

You will note that the preamble to the Australia Act ends in 'independent, sovereign and federal nation.' while the Irish constitutions preamble ends with 'independent, sovereign and democratic state'. The Irish people voted 'yes' for their constitution over 80 years ago but the people of Australia are still waiting (over 33 years) to approve the constitutional changes contained in the Australia act 1986. Since 1986 there has been only 1 referendum, 2 questions for changes to our preamble, and both failed. In the same period prior to 1986 there were around 20 referendums with one third of the questions being approved constitutionally by the people.

 

BTW, our High Court regards Australia as a 'parliamentary democracy' even though we have a constitution for a 'constitutional monarchy' so the rot is wide spread and goes right up to the highest levels.

[DanielBoyd]

Hi Daniel,

 

At the highest levels:-

 

Just consider that we have a state in Australia that is currently in the process of passing legislation to require priests to pass on any information to the police that was obtained in the confessional but at the same time this states courts are cancelling hardened criminals sentences on appeal because a lawyer broke lawyer client confidentiality and passed on relevant information to the police that resulted in the hardened criminals being conviction in the first place!

 

The judges, politicians and lawyers are also running a system in that same state where 12 year old girls, who are married to much older men, say they consented to sex with their husbands even when the states age of consent is 16, so the husband is not prosecuted.

 

That's the problem with either direct corruption or absolute incompetence, either way people get hurt, the innocent get molested and the true price to society is the same in the long run regardless.

 

Why would you bother talking to people without integrity as they all happily eat this 'sh*t sandwich' without question.

 

You've got a good point about the fact that different laws may conflict, that lawyers make the laws, and they get paid to sort out the mess it has become, which probably doesn't optimally motivate for a logically coherent system. And the examples you mention would be clearly terrible examples. 

 

My question in theis thread is not so much directed at this kind of law, as to the constitutional structure of society: defining what politicians jobs should be, rather then letting them run riot with anything they have a (ususally uninformed) opinion on.

 

Any thoughts on that? 

[DanielBoyd]

Also read the Australia Act 1986 and the Irish Constitution.

 

You will note that the preamble to the Australia Act ends in 'independent, sovereign and federal nation.' while the Irish constitutions preamble ends with 'independent, sovereign and democratic state'. The Irish people voted 'yes' for their constitution over 80 years ago but the people of Australia are still waiting (over 33 years) to approve the constitutional changes contained in the Australia act 1986. Since 1986 there has been only 1 referendum, 2 questions for changes to our preamble, and both failed. In the same period prior to 1986 there were around 20 referendums with one third of the questions being approved constitutionally by the people.

 

BTW, our High Court regards Australia as a 'parliamentary democracy' even though we have a constitution for a 'constitutional monarchy' so the rot is wide spread and goes right up to the highest levels.

Sorry, should have read your second post first!!

 

This is exactly the point I'm interested in. As long as politicians have contol over the system they are a part of conflicting interests are always going to be a problem. It would take a very very public-minded politician to give away his own position of power to someone else, even if that other person could do the job better.

 

Shouldn't the first line of the Constitution be: "Politicians do not determine the Constituion"?

 

I also don't think the populace should be asked how the political system should work. To start with, they can only exert an influence through elected politicians, so that solves nothing. More importantly, they have even less understanding of such systems and are easily influenced by people with a vested interest (politicians and business lobbyists).

 

Instead, it seems to me that this task should be given to people without any personal interest in the outcome, and with knowledge of how political systems work. A mathematician, for instance, can give an objective and rational answer to the question of how to design a fair voting system, and won't have any personal interest in designing it to be unfair.

 

. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by DanielBoyd

[LaurieAG]

My question in theis thread is not so much directed at this kind of law, as to the constitutional structure of society: defining what politicians jobs should be, rather then letting them run riot with anything they have a (ususally uninformed) opinion on.

 

Any thoughts on that? 

 

It all boils down to the percentage of our politicians who are lawyers and 30-50% corrupts the system.

[LaurieAG]

Shouldn't the first line of the Constitution be: "Politicians do not determine the Constituion"?

 

I wrote the following in 2000.

 

 

Code Red for the Australian Constitution

 

Most people know as much about the Australian Constitution and our system of laws as they do about the operation of computer viruses. It's not surprising really as both are complex sections of written (or unwritten) code that bind and control procedural systems operating on an If/Then basis.

 

The Code Red Worm targets the Internet Servers that distribute the users files etc. This type of viral attack has a two pronged impact as the legal owners of the system are denied the right to use their system in the way they see fit while the recipients of the dummy messages sent by the worm suffer from a Denial Of Service attack.  The latest version of Code Red inserts a 'back door' into the Server which allows the perpetrators to regain control. Fortunately the 'back door' can be easily detected although the infected hard disk must be formatted before system integrity can be restored.

 

You might ask, what has a computer virus got to do with the Australian Constitution? Viruses like to inhabit the grey areas of any type of system whether they be biological, computer, political or even outside the scope of their own creators. Just for a start they both operate under If/Then type rule based procedures and if anything the Australian Constitution is at the pinnacle of a large procedural system in which all citizens have a stake. Just like the hard disk format required to remove the Code Red 'back door', the will of the Australian people is enshrined in the Australian Constitution through its preamble where all 'have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth' under the constitution.

 

In a fundamental way this agreement of the people provides a basic safety catch that prevents other programs from being run that could subvert the control of the system. Unfortunately some politicians and their advisors think that preambles are non legally binding and therefore unlock this safety catch. As preambles just express the intent of the legislation in a summary format their legal status has nothing to do with the legal  bindingness of the legislation contained in any proclaimed act itself. The main difficulty with preambles not being legally binding is that there would be nothing to legally hold the people to the constitution and the Australian legal system. A closer look at our history can shed some light on this matter.

 

In the first instance, we can compare the process taken over a century ago with the unheralded one back in 1986 to gain a perspective on the situation. In the late 1800's the people of the states voted in referendums for a Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was created and established as an act of the Parliament of the UK in 1900, while the act itself was finally proclaimed in 1901. After 1901 the consent of the Australian people was required to modify this act. In 1926 Australia and Britain were acknowledged to be of equal status. In 1985 the Australia Act was established, introduced into the Federal Parliament and in 1986 it was proclaimed without any possibility that it could be be witheld or disallowed, let alone be constitutionally approved or celebrated by the people.

 

The Australia Act, through its preamble, brings constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and Federal nation. This wording is unique in Australian legislation. The act itself requires that it can only be repealed by politicians while modifications to our constitution require a referendum yes vote in a majority of the states.  Why should any constitutional powers originally held by the Parliament of the UK (equal since 1926) and the Federal Council of Australasia (then less equal) at the establishment of the Australian Constitution in 1900 and claimed through the preamble to the Australia Act, be expected to actually exist in 1986?

 

In the second instance we can see that the referendum of 1999, through questions intending to give clear constitutional title to the Federal parliament, was rejected by the people on both accounts even though one was just a proposed preamble change. As Paul Keating stated, while the people may have the right to change the constitution by voting at referendums, the politicians have the right to determine what questions are to be asked. In this respect, responsibility for the present state of the Australian Constitution lies squarely at the feet of the recalcitrant minority who phrase referendum questions, not to the liking of the people.

 

The perceived right to determine our own 'head of state' on a national and state basis pales into a hollow gesture through the major structural changes contained in the Australia Act. While all State Governors lost the power to withold or disallow legislation (like removing the US State Governors and Presidents powers of veto), the state Premiers gained the power to 'direct' the State representatives of the monarch (the Governors) in the 'exercise of their powers' to complement the Prime Ministers 'unwritten' power over the Governor General.  Are our politicians so perfect that they require no supervision? Why would you bother to vote for anybody, in any position, who, if elected, could not be expected to exercise their own free will? Could this cynical/democratic exercise be considered democratic/cynical?

 

In the third instance we can wonder about the entire Australian military forces being stood down for a day before being restored under the Minister for Defense instead of the Governor General, as the Prime Minister commands our nations military forces like it was just another arm of cabinet. It seems one question that will never be asked of the Australian people will be 'Would you like to change Australia from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Republic with a popularly elected President and popularly elected State Governors who have all the original powers of the monarch between them, through the Australian Constitution, as approved by the people'.

 

Would you treat your computer like our politicians treat the Australian Constitution, could you afford to? Just like Code Red, the Australia Act 1986 should be considered hostile code that snatches the right of the people to determine the sovereignty and independence status of the type of system currently running in this country. Surely, just like control of a computer system by its lawful owners, national sovereignty status should be in the constitutional domain of the people and should not be locked up in a legislative tower under the executive custodianship of our politicians?

 

It just goes to show that if you feel like you have lost control, things don't seem to function as they did previously and there appears to be no obvious way to restore the original settings, your system probably is suffering from a virus.