Super-democracy!
By 
Shan-ul-Hai •
July 4, 2008
Two hundred and thirty-two years ago today, Thomas Jefferson announced the Americans’ future right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But people often forget the next part of the Declaration of Independence, where he states “that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.
The term “consent of the governed,” unfortunately, was never defined. Does it mean that everybody has to agree to the government? Or that more than half of the people have to agree? Or just that the people have the right to get rid of a government if we want? Jefferson, of course, was insinuating a majority-rule democracy… but is that the only way to make it work?
As many of you already know, we don’t live in a truly democratic society. In a true democracy, there would be no President or Congress… every decision would be made by majority rule. There’s no way for us to make that work in such a big country, so we go for the closest thing we can: a representative democracy where we spend half of our time worrying about elections and the other half complaining about how our favorite candidate didn’t get elected. So, I thought about it… is there any other way?
Well, I couldn’t think of anything good. But I did think of an option that might work:
What if we just had official monthly approval ratings for our leaders? Instead of doing the usual elections, we could require everybody to take an hour every six months to decide whether or not they approve of the current President or congressman or mayor or governor. When the approval ratings drop below a given number (say, 40%), then it’s time for an election. If the people are happy with their leader, then we don’t need to waste time replacing him. That way, he won’t have to waste all of this time campaigning as long as he’s doing a good job.
Of course, it would have to be more complicated than that. And it probably wouldn’t work… but why?
Popularity: 21% [?]
| 3.2 |
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
There are nations out there where they do have periodic mid-term elections following votes of “no confidence” in the leadership, but such votes tend to be rare. In the U.S., the executive and legislative branches of government have a watchful eye on what the other branch does, and when an individual or group blatantly brakes the rules, they are punished and/or removed from power.
Trying to replace that with a system based on popularity polls could result in changes in leadership every six months depending on the situation at hand. Right now, using your level of 40% as an example, the entire Congress and the Presidency would be vacant and open for an election. Could you imagine the chaos that would create not only in our own country but around the world? As the stability of the U.S. goes, so does that of many nations around the world.
No, I think if people cannot put up with a politician which they personally cannot stand for up to 6 years (Senate), then I think they should enter a program to learn some patience. Their chance to vote the individual out will come, and they might be disappointed if a majority of the voters (not necessarily the public itself) disagree with their unhappiness. If that is the case, then they need to learn to deal with the outcome and continue on with their lives, just like others do when someone is elected that they disagree with.
(Sorry if that isn’t of any help.)