...... because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress. (Isocrates, 4th Cent. B.C.)

(Footnote: Isocrates applied for the post of tutor to Alexander the Great, but as he was over 90 at the time, Aristotle was appointed instead.)

Applicable in 2014 too!

MMM. I won't argue with Isocrates. He makes true enough points.

I will offer my own take on democracy.

Many people will say that despite it's flaws, democracy is the best system we've got. True enough, but that disregards the possibility of devising a better system.

I offer "Qualified Democracy".

Qualified Democracy overcomes one of the greatest (if not the greatest) flaw in standard democracy; in essence, democracy is majority rule. By definition, majority rule is rule of the average man who makes average decisions, albeit he votes for someone who is supposedly better than average. Ideally, society wants the best decisions, made by the best minds with the best ethics and greatest integrity.

To achieve the best, candidates for political positions (the people's representatives) should qualify for the position in terms of the aforementioned 3 criteria but also to have knowledge of their particular portfolio (ie, an accountant doesn't have the police portfolio and a medical doctor would have the health portfolio)

To ensure the best policies are pursued by the representatives, voters should qualify to vote.

Effectively, the bottom xx% of the population are disqualified from voting on grounds of poor intellect, low integrity, anti-social attitude or mental disorder.

Only the top yy% can stand for election.

When I have offered this idea in the past, I always get howls of "But it's not democracy if you don't let some of the people vote!" and "How can you decide who can vote or not?"

No, it's not democracy as we know it. It's a new, better form of government that has much in common with democracy.

It's not me deciding who can vote, it would be science and a committee of great minds. That's why I said "xx%". (My guess is it would be around 30-40%, and yy% around 20).

Qualified Democracy would put an end to idiot populist policies and idiot leaders who get in on personality or looks.

<snip>

Qualified Democracy would put an end to idiot populist policies and idiot leaders who get in on personality or looks.

Not necessarily.

Check out the candidate the so called educated elite has backed in the past two US Presidential elections.

Hardly a rousing endorsement for your theory.

PS: I'll give you a hint. They didn't back the McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan tickets.

<snip>

Qualified Democracy would put an end to idiot populist policies and idiot leaders who get in on personality or looks.

Not necessarily.

Check out the candidate the so called educated elite has backed in the past two US Presidential elections.

Hardly a rousing endorsement for your theory.

PS: I'll give you a hint. They didn't back the McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan tickets.

Ahhh....I assume you refer to Obama?

For sure he's got personality and looks, but is that why he got in? I think not. Compared to his predecessor, Obama is a literal genius.

Of course the "educated elite" did not back Palin or Romney! You jest, surely, that they may have even considered them a choice?

You strengthen my case.

I agree with you, Seastallion (and Isocrates), that democracy is not an ideal system, but I don't think your offering is any better.

First, where do you get your "committee of great minds"?

Second, how do you 'select' your voters? By exam or how? Just think of the administration and the opportunities for cheating. And would everybody submit to your selection process?

Third, candidates for the top post are either selected by a very small group (in parliamentary democracy) or on the negative criterion that there's nothing wrong with them (as in a presidential system). Otherwise, why on earth would anybody have selected George W. Bush, let alone Dan Quayle as VP. I don't see how your system would change this (except maybe neither would have made the electable group!).

I agree with you, Seastallion (and Isocrates), that democracy is not an ideal system, but I don't think your offering is any better.

First, where do you get your "committee of great minds"?

Second, how do you 'select' your voters? By exam or how? Just think of the administration and the opportunities for cheating. And would everybody submit to your selection process?

Third, candidates for the top post are either selected by a very small group (in parliamentary democracy) or on the negative criterion that there's nothing wrong with them (as in a presidential system). Otherwise, why on earth would anybody have selected George W. Bush, let alone Dan Quayle as VP. I don't see how your system would change this (except maybe neither would have made the electable group!).

Lol, I'll start at the last sentence because it's the funniest.....Exactly right, George Dubbya Bush would not have been able to stand, neither would Yingluck or Tony Abbot.

There are well established yardsticks for intelligence and personality traits such as integrity. A committee of great minds would consist of people who qualify to an arbitrary (at first) and high level, and they would use science and maths to determine the qualifications. They would be subpoenaed to serve if necessary. They would also now be disqualified from political service.

Yes, there would be an electoral exam...possibly sat in high school, possibly available to be sat at an electoral office every second Saturday, or whatever.

Yes, parliamentary democracy as far as that goes. Remember that the "very small group" are all very smart and responsible men and women.

It may have flaws, but the thing is the whole world is being very Thai about democracy; It has flaws, but this is the way we've always done it and so this is the way we will continue to do it.

I also think that because the obvious answer to the current flaws are some sort of "qualified democracy" people shy away from it because it means it's not a true democracy...which is anathema to the democratically minded.

It's past time people started devising a better system.

To get the best, you need to winnow out the worst.

I'd be quite happy to be disqualified from voting as long as I didn't have to pay any more taxes but while the government is taking my money I want a say in who the government is.

<snip>

Qualified Democracy would put an end to idiot populist policies and idiot leaders who get in on personality or looks.

Not necessarily.

Check out the candidate the so called educated elite has backed in the past two US Presidential elections.

Hardly a rousing endorsement for your theory.

PS: I'll give you a hint. They didn't back the McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan tickets.

For which we are eternally grateful.

Just goes to show how a whole lot of the conservative white vote secretly covet bling.

There's more to it than just playing Eminem when 'cruisin' an' playin' the radio wit no particular place to go.' You know?

I'd be quite happy to be disqualified from voting as long as I didn't have to pay any more taxes but while the government is taking my money I want a say in who the government is.

There's the rub. People think that if they pay taxes, they have a say.

It doesn't work like that.

Taxes are collected to pay for the things society needs. It's about society, not the individual..

Think about it as a non-qualified-to-vote person is acceptable collateral damage.

And that is the biggest load of elitist guff that I have read in a long time. I repeat - if the government is taking money off me I want a say in the make up of that government. Remember 'No taxation without representation'?

And that is the biggest load of elitist guff that I have read in a long time. I repeat - if the government is taking money off me I want a say in the make up of that government. Remember 'No taxation without representation'?

Of course he doesn't remember that, he's a liberal.

<snip>

Qualified Democracy would put an end to idiot populist policies and idiot leaders who get in on personality or looks.

Not necessarily.

Check out the candidate the so called educated elite has backed in the past two US Presidential elections.

Hardly a rousing endorsement for your theory.

PS: I'll give you a hint. They didn't back the McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan tickets.

Ahhh....I assume you refer to Obama?

For sure he's got personality and looks, but is that why he got in? I think not. Compared to his predecessor, Obama is a literal genius.

Of course the "educated elite" did not back Palin or Romney! You jest, surely, that they may have even considered them a choice?

You strengthen my case.

He got in because his only qualification is that he is black. He never governed anything, and far as I know, never held a real job in the private sector. It's quite evident that many of our concerns have been realized, now practically on a daily basis.

Not a fan of McCain, but Romney could have done better. As to Democrats, they don't have anyone that I can think of, that I would like to see in the White House. But, if we had to have one, Biden should be the President, and certainly not Hillary or Obama.

And that is the biggest load of elitist guff that I have read in a long time. I repeat - if the government is taking money off me I want a say in the make up of that government. Remember 'No taxation without representation'?

No taxation without representation. It rhymes. Nice.

Acceptable collateral damage. Doesn't rhyme. Not nice.

The greatest good for the greatest number means some people don't get what they want.

Democracy should be seen as a stage which we have to pass through. It is not the be-all and end-all; even Isocrates, 2350 years ago, realised that.

It works not too badly in small countries like Switzerland and Finland, and atrociously in large countries like the US and India. The US Presidency is to a large extent a function of the amount of money the candidate can collect; in other words, he must offend the smallest number of people so that he can collect from the rest.

All SeaStallion is doing is to try and suggest where we go next (I opened a thread on that some while back). I don't agree with his suggestions, but I applaud him for trying.

And, to all Americans and Britons, the majority of the people on this forum, can you honestly affirm that you have a real say in how you're governed?

Democracy should be seen as a stage which we have to pass through. It is not the be-all and end-all; even Isocrates, 2350 years ago, realised that.

It works not too badly in small countries like Switzerland and Finland, and atrociously in large countries like the US and India. The US Presidency is to a large extent a function of the amount of money the candidate can collect; in other words, he must offend the smallest number of people so that he can collect from the rest.

All SeaStallion is doing is to try and suggest where we go next (I opened a thread on that some while back). I don't agree with his suggestions, but I applaud him for trying.

And, to all Americans and Britons, the majority of the people on this forum, can you honestly affirm that you have a real say in how you're governed?

And if there's some sort of what will inevitably turn into a self selecting 'elite' we'll have more say than we do now?

Democracy should be seen as a stage which we have to pass through.

Why?

Democracy should be seen as a stage which we have to pass through. It is not the be-all and end-all; even Isocrates, 2350 years ago, realised that.

It works not too badly in small countries like Switzerland and Finland, and atrociously in large countries like the US and India. The US Presidency is to a large extent a function of the amount of money the candidate can collect; in other words, he must offend the smallest number of people so that he can collect from the rest.

All SeaStallion is doing is to try and suggest where we go next (I opened a thread on that some while back). I don't agree with his suggestions, but I applaud him for trying.

And, to all Americans and Britons, the majority of the people on this forum, can you honestly affirm that you have a real say in how you're governed?

And if there's some sort of what will inevitably turn into a self selecting 'elite' we'll have more say than we do now?

Ok, I see your concern now. You've been too long in Thailand....lol. I think you should be more concerned if that so-called elite was a small proportion of society, but what I proposed is probably 60- 70% of society voting for candidates in the upper quartile.....you would no doubt be part of the electorate.

I just want to stop the idiots voting or standing for election.

Democracy should be seen as a stage which we have to pass through. It is not the be-all and end-all; even Isocrates, 2350 years ago, realised that.

It works not too badly in small countries like Switzerland and Finland, and atrociously in large countries like the US and India. The US Presidency is to a large extent a function of the amount of money the candidate can collect; in other words, he must offend the smallest number of people so that he can collect from the rest.

All SeaStallion is doing is to try and suggest where we go next (I opened a thread on that some while back). I don't agree with his suggestions, but I applaud him for trying.

And, to all Americans and Britons, the majority of the people on this forum, can you honestly affirm that you have a real say in how you're governed?

And if there's some sort of what will inevitably turn into a self selecting 'elite' we'll have more say than we do now?

Ok, I see your concern now. You've been too long in Thailand....lol.

I don't live in Thailand - lol. I live in the land of Magna Carta, the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Peterloo Massacre. We don't take too kindly to being told that we ought to know our place and let the 'special people' run the place on our behalf.

Democracy should be seen as a stage which we have to pass through. It is not the be-all and end-all; even Isocrates, 2350 years ago, realised that.

It works not too badly in small countries like Switzerland and Finland, and atrociously in large countries like the US and India. The US Presidency is to a large extent a function of the amount of money the candidate can collect; in other words, he must offend the smallest number of people so that he can collect from the rest.

All SeaStallion is doing is to try and suggest where we go next (I opened a thread on that some while back). I don't agree with his suggestions, but I applaud him for trying.

And, to all Americans and Britons, the majority of the people on this forum, can you honestly affirm that you have a real say in how you're governed?

And if there's some sort of what will inevitably turn into a self selecting 'elite' we'll have more say than we do now?

Ok, I see your concern now. You've been too long in Thailand....lol. I think you should be more concerned if that so-called elite was a small proportion of society, but what I proposed is probably 60- 70% of society voting for candidates in the upper quartile.....you would no doubt be part of the electorate.

I just want to stop the idiots voting or standing for election.

How would you decide who the 'idiots' are? I left school at 17 without any qualifications worth getting excited about. I went to trade school for a while and learnt the morse code. Would I be one of the idiots?

Democracy is a flawed system, and has been seen to be so since its early days in Athens. The trouble is, we have nothing better to offer at the moment That doesn't mean we should be content with what we've got, nor seek to impose it on other societies which have grown up in different ways from our European/American models.. Remember also, as people rarely do, that the Athenian version was based on the votes of citizens only, a relatively small minority of the people in a city which depended heavily on slaves and metics (resident aliens).

Britain had a property-owning system at one stage, which has something to be said for it.

The difficulty of proposing any alternative is that it is bound to be in some way elitist. But even an elitist system would be unable to listen to all the views of its reduced number of constituents.... so no, Sustento, you wouldn't have any more say! You might not like being told to know your place, but isn't that what happens in our present highly bureaucratised version of democracy?

I just don't think democracy can work in any but a small, highly educated society.

I get to vote. If enough people feel the same way as I do we kick the incumbent out and try someone else. For any other situations I have a sharpened pitchfork at the ready.

Democracy should be seen as a stage which we have to pass through. It is not the be-all and end-all; even Isocrates, 2350 years ago, realised that.

It works not too badly in small countries like Switzerland and Finland, and atrociously in large countries like the US and India. The US Presidency is to a large extent a function of the amount of money the candidate can collect; in other words, he must offend the smallest number of people so that he can collect from the rest.

All SeaStallion is doing is to try and suggest where we go next (I opened a thread on that some while back). I don't agree with his suggestions, but I applaud him for trying.

And, to all Americans and Britons, the majority of the people on this forum, can you honestly affirm that you have a real say in how you're governed?

Democracy works as long as the power pyramide is bottom heavy. As a Finn, I have no respect to my members of the parliament or members of the cabinet by their statuses, but I do respect the skills and knowledges they might have.

Democracy fall starts when the politicians think they are bosses, not leaders nor servants of the people. It's very easy to get high of the power once you are on the top. It's not so easy to think that you are voted by the people to do your best for your country. Do the best even for those who did not vote for you.

There are populists and there are statesmen/women. The populists will gain temporary power and then will burn like Ikaros. The statesmen will be remembered in a positive way for long.

Often people think that there are only populist parties. It's simply not true. There are populist people in every parties. The used car salesmen/women who try get as much as they can for themselves in a short timespan. These people are the quartal thinkers while the statesmen are the people who think in the long term for the benefit of the people.

The rise of democracy starts from us. Do not respect the power itself and demand the power to earn the respect.

I get to vote. If enough people feel the same way as I do we kick the incumbent out and try someone else. For any other situations I have a sharpened pitchfork at the ready.

I think you will need your pitchfork pretty often!

I get to vote. If enough people feel the same way as I do we kick the incumbent out and try someone else. For any other situations I have a sharpened pitchfork at the ready.

I think you will need your pitchfork pretty often!

That's ok. It's very sharp.

One of the problems about democracy is that most people don't bother to express their opinions until something affects themselves. This will usually happen between elections when there is very littte they can do about it without making a major effort.

Even the Athenians had this problem. They solved it by paying for attendance at the Assembly.... 2 obols a day, which was enough to live on. But we (whoever we are) could hardly follow their example.

One of the problems about democracy is that most people don't bother to express their opinions until something affects themselves. This will usually happen between elections when there is very littte they can do about it without making a major effort.

Even the Athenians had this problem. They solved it by paying for attendance at the Assembly.... 2 obols a day, which was enough to live on. But we (whoever we are) could hardly follow their example.

An upsurge globally in green initiatives is one example of people power working, and being altruistic. Legislation has been passed in numerous countries on such matters as air pollution, de-forestation, whaling, fish stocks, endangered species etc.

But your point about the ennui of the people being a problem with democracy emphasises my stance; The majority of people can't be left alone to do the right thing in the right way. They can't be trusted to think for the greater good, they can't be trusted to make the right vote, if they even bother to vote.

The vacuum leaves the politicians, many of whom are in the job for their own agenda, to do what they like.

When voting becomes a privilege accorded to those that earn it, and the politicians are people who are proven able mentors, there is an incentive to vote, and a voting demograph that is more likely to vote.

One of the problems about democracy is that most people don't bother to express their opinions until something affects themselves. This will usually happen between elections when there is very littte they can do about it without making a major effort.

Even the Athenians had this problem. They solved it by paying for attendance at the Assembly.... 2 obols a day, which was enough to live on. But we (whoever we are) could hardly follow their example.

An upsurge globally in green initiatives is one example of people power working, and being altruistic. Legislation has been passed in numerous countries on such matters as air pollution, de-forestation, whaling, fish stocks, endangered species etc.

But your point about the ennui of the people being a problem with democracy emphasises my stance; The majority of people can't be left alone to do the right thing in the right way. They can't be trusted to think for the greater good, they can't be trusted to make the right vote, if they even bother to vote.

The vacuum leaves the politicians, many of whom are in the job for their own agenda, to do what they like.

When voting becomes a privilege accorded to those that earn it, and the politicians are people who are proven able mentors, there is an incentive to vote, and a voting demograph that is more likely to vote.

I agree with your first paragraph. My avatar is a case in point. The Spoon-billed Sandpiper breeds (rather unsuccessfully) in a remote part of Kamchatska, and there are only about 100 pairs left. By private enterprise a few pairs were translocated to the Severn Wildfowl Trust, where they are breeding successfully.

The rest of your post is patronising and elitist. Maybe you think these are good characteristics; I don't. How can you select voters without converting the rest into second-class citizens?

One of the problems about democracy is that most people don't bother to express their opinions until something affects themselves. This will usually happen between elections when there is very littte they can do about it without making a major effort.

Even the Athenians had this problem. They solved it by paying for attendance at the Assembly.... 2 obols a day, which was enough to live on. But we (whoever we are) could hardly follow their example.

An upsurge globally in green initiatives is one example of people power working, and being altruistic. Legislation has been passed in numerous countries on such matters as air pollution, de-forestation, whaling, fish stocks, endangered species etc.

But your point about the ennui of the people being a problem with democracy emphasises my stance; The majority of people can't be left alone to do the right thing in the right way. They can't be trusted to think for the greater good, they can't be trusted to make the right vote, if they even bother to vote.

The vacuum leaves the politicians, many of whom are in the job for their own agenda, to do what they like.

When voting becomes a privilege accorded to those that earn it, and the politicians are people who are proven able mentors, there is an incentive to vote, and a voting demograph that is more likely to vote.

More of the 'special people' deciding what's best for the rest of us I see.

One of the problems about democracy is that most people don't bother to express their opinions until something affects themselves. This will usually happen between elections when there is very littte they can do about it without making a major effort.

Even the Athenians had this problem. They solved it by paying for attendance at the Assembly.... 2 obols a day, which was enough to live on. But we (whoever we are) could hardly follow their example.

An upsurge globally in green initiatives is one example of people power working, and being altruistic. Legislation has been passed in numerous countries on such matters as air pollution, de-forestation, whaling, fish stocks, endangered species etc.

But your point about the ennui of the people being a problem with democracy emphasises my stance; The majority of people can't be left alone to do the right thing in the right way. They can't be trusted to think for the greater good, they can't be trusted to make the right vote, if they even bother to vote.

The vacuum leaves the politicians, many of whom are in the job for their own agenda, to do what they like.

When voting becomes a privilege accorded to those that earn it, and the politicians are people who are proven able mentors, there is an incentive to vote, and a voting demograph that is more likely to vote.

More of the 'special people' deciding what's best for the rest of us I see.

Would you rather non-special people making the decisions?

How can you possibly prefer someone who is potentially an idiot (such as George W Bush) than someone proven to be smart?