I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.
I agree with you on the fact that 99% of people have nothing to gain from following or getting worked up over politics. It's all just obfuscation. The only thing that matters is "are things better or worse," nothing else.
“Are things better or worse?” rarely gets asked, and when it does, the answer is almost always “better when my guys are in power, worse when your guys are in power” regardless of the actual truth. This is yet another reason why mass democracy is ridiculous.
I like your fictional system. Maybe we add a twist to it where if they make it to the end, and 90% of the population vote for it, the sentence is commuted and they retire to a presidential palace in the country. But set that bar high.
And maybe not risk the rope every year or two, I worry that leads to the same short termism we're plagued with thanks to regular elections. 20 year term, evaluations every 5, and no out once you're in. That way you've got to be thinking long-term and short-term simultaneously.
Good tweak. And I agree, maybe every two years is too harsh. As you said, we do want long-term thinking to prevail. Maybe at the halfway mark there’s a reassessment? That might be too long--there would need to be a good, reliable way to be rid of a truly bad ruler before they can do too much damage.
There's always politically motivated assassination... Anyone who kills the ruler then faces an election and either takes their place or is brutally tortured and killed if the people vote against them. To keep the consensus.
Or there's a recall, if X% of the citizens lodge a petition then there is an immediate election.
Whoa...that assassination angle implies assassination as an overt, out-in-the-open chance, like the proverbial one shot to take out the king. Interesting.
I agree with you on the fact that 99% of people have nothing to gain from following or getting worked up over politics. It's all just obfuscation. The only thing that matters is "are things better or worse," nothing else.
“Are things better or worse?” rarely gets asked, and when it does, the answer is almost always “better when my guys are in power, worse when your guys are in power” regardless of the actual truth. This is yet another reason why mass democracy is ridiculous.
I like your fictional system. Maybe we add a twist to it where if they make it to the end, and 90% of the population vote for it, the sentence is commuted and they retire to a presidential palace in the country. But set that bar high.
And maybe not risk the rope every year or two, I worry that leads to the same short termism we're plagued with thanks to regular elections. 20 year term, evaluations every 5, and no out once you're in. That way you've got to be thinking long-term and short-term simultaneously.
Good tweak. And I agree, maybe every two years is too harsh. As you said, we do want long-term thinking to prevail. Maybe at the halfway mark there’s a reassessment? That might be too long--there would need to be a good, reliable way to be rid of a truly bad ruler before they can do too much damage.
There's always politically motivated assassination... Anyone who kills the ruler then faces an election and either takes their place or is brutally tortured and killed if the people vote against them. To keep the consensus.
Or there's a recall, if X% of the citizens lodge a petition then there is an immediate election.
Whoa...that assassination angle implies assassination as an overt, out-in-the-open chance, like the proverbial one shot to take out the king. Interesting.