1…2…3…democracy!

I’ve heard plenty of times that a one-party state isn’t a democracy, yet I wonder how a two or three party state is more democratic. How can one believe that the idea of millions of people can be summed up to two or three programs? It seems ridiculous to me.

Best example is the United States. You have the democrats and the republicans. Both are right-winged parties, yet democrats group an extensive board of beliefs and people. We can just look at the ideas of Mr. Obama, opposed to those of Mrs Clinton. At least the primaries gave a bit of a choice regarding the candidate, hence the beliefs and hopes the population wish to see carried to the White House.

Regardless, true Socialists, green, communists of the United States can’t really agree with the whole ideas of those candidates. While other parties exist, they just don’t matter enough to be elected, unable to reach a large portion of the population. In fact, it’s important to note that until this year, California had a law allowing employers to fire their employees for taking part or being part in the communist party.

In my opinion, the only way to reach a true democracy is to either have tons of political parties, or none. The reason is simple: you either have enough choices to join a party that truly represents you fully, or you get involved yourself. In Cuba for example, there are political parties but they are of no importance. The people elect those they believe in the most, who get involved in the community, who helps them. They choose the person who will truly mean to help them, not only an ideal that won’t lead anywhere in the end. I hear that in Venezuela, it’s a dominant-party system yet either way, it resumes in the population choosing and that’s what matters most. Their democratic system is way more advance than ours in North America.

Another thing that causes problem within the current way of doing things is the financing of political parties. In the U.S., there is no limit to the amount of money a party can get, and in fact, the state will even give money to the candidates if they didn’t raise enough (there’s a limit of 245 millions, if I’m not mistaken) That’s…a lot of money! It’s also hard to believe that a company that makes a donation of let’s say…3 millions to a candidate during the campaign, won’t expect a little something later on. The financing of the elections should be kept as low as possible, for both the tax-payers’, and democracy’s well-being. Also, there should be more regulations regarding how much can be given to a political party. In Quebec, I know that the limit as donation to a political party is of $3000 per person.

On a final note, I’d say that no matter the number of party involved, if the population doesn’t get involved fully in the process and this, from the start: there is no chance that democracy will truly be reached. It will remain nothing more than an illusion cherished by those who still believe in it…

A Redefiniton of Government and its Purpose

This should be a fairly simple article in scope. I simply wish to redefine what a government’s purpose is and should be. Several governments today have taken the liberty of overextending the powers given to them by the people, and scaring the people into allowing this to happen. The first step in fixing this problem is to define what exactly a government should be doing, and limit them to this role.

Purposes of a Government:

1. Protection of the people from outside control, including from the governmental body itself.
2. Protection of the people’s right to exist, including all things the people might need to exist.
3. Protection of the people’s right to free thought, expression, and education.

These things summarize most succinctly what a government’s purpose is. Anything further, including attempts to protect the government body from dissolution, is outside the right of the government as given by the people. When the government begins to act as an entity outside the control of the people, it has corrupted its purpose and should either be reformed or replaced.

I would be glad to hear arguments about further roles the government should fill, but at this time this is all I think they should be striving to achieve.

As always, think for yourself.

-Justin

The Illusion of the Outdated Representative Democracy

While my interest in communism, socialism, and economics in general is relatively new, I have always had an enthusiasm for governmental and legislative methods. Since an early age, I have held issue with representative democracy (specifically concerning legislation) and the illusion of democratic process it gives to the people. The initial reasoning behind the process is quite understandable: people were simply unable to devote the time to debate and vote on every issue when a journey to town might take half a day, and as landowners tended to be farmers they needed to work in order to subsist; however, today people have advanced transportation, communication, and access to information. Implementing a true democracy would take only an easily identifiable application of the technologies at hand.

Representative democracy’s placing of law making into the hands of the few results in a skewed representation of the people’s wishes. For example, in the United States the bicameral legislature consists of 100 senators (2 per state) and 435 representatives (a varying number, but at least one per state). Therefore, the ideas and opinions of over 300 million people concerning laws are decided by roughly .0000017% of the population. While executive and judicial matters are understandably concentrated in few hands, having the legislative process so limited is an outrage. Combined with voting systems that have skewed the people’s vote (3 instances of the US President elected without the popular vote), there is little reason to accept representative democracy as ‘democracy’.

The representatives do however play a crucial role, even if they should not be the sole voters on legislation and are elected poorly. By having people focused on the debate between different viewpoints, it would be key in a true democracy for these debates to be presented to the population as information to help the average person make an informed decision. A normal person might not understand why increasing the tax on a certain item .1% is good or bad, but the ‘legislative branch’ should focus on presenting the pros and cons of the issue to the voters. Essentially, in my ideal world, the legislation plays the role of debaters, and the voting populace the judges (if you are familiar with debate).

After defining the role of the legislative branch and giving the vote back to the people, several questions arise. How are the representatives elected? How and when do people vote on these laws? Won’t the legislative process slow to a crawl? Is it even possible to count this many votes consistently? While I won’t try to answer the questions concerning voter fraud since that is not something I feel qualified to discuss, I will answer the latter questions first. After having the legislative branch debate on a law, once the sides have presented their case, the law should be opened for voting. After this, permanent voting centers that are open all days and hours would accept votes for a specific interval. This spreads the voting congestion, and allows people to find a suitable time to vote, thereby encouraging turnout. All information concerning the issue should be available online and at the voting site. Once the bill has finished its voting time, the law would pass or fail, and be implemented as outlined in the bill. Americans will note this removes the Presidential veto, which would be unnecessary in a system that truly followed the will of the people

As for election of these officials, the current methodology is flawed. While speed of travel and communication made organizing districts to appoint national officials the best answer at the time, it is now unnecessary in elections that concern a national body. Term length and time of election are not in the scope of this article, but the method would involve deciding upon a reasonable number of debaters, and having candidates present their ideals to the populace. The voters would then place their support, and the candidates would be elected if they rank within the number of debaters needed. While this could lead to skewed debater representation, since the ability to put the laws into place is in the hands of the people it is not as much of a concern.

When taking my view into consideration, keep in mind that this assumes several conventions of the American governmental model, including a ‘constitution’ as a guideline and paper guaranteeing certain rights, and a judicial branch who can check the legislative branch with said constitution. It also specifically addresses national legislative branch elections, and not elections on any other scale or for other offices. It simply coincides with my ideal that the laws a population must live by should be decided on by the population, and not an insignificant minority elected through faulty systems. I will gladly accept thoughtful criticism in the comments section.

Always keep an open mind.

-Justin