Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?

[Refuge]

I understand that, it's similar here in the U.S. I guess I'm at a point where I'm starting to believe maybe our government is too large, our population is too large to be represented fairly, and that as a result, things are starting to break down.

This is terribly topical in a way but I kind of like a system where (in a large country) various regions or states are assigned (something like your Electoral College) a representative 'State' number of votes. Yes I sympathise people are hurting because of the more recent election, but it is important to get inside the lives of citizens. Farming communities have different needs to city ones. Density of population translated to a popular vote trade off, seems so practical but is it fair?

Of course it's not just Federal Government that affects us. We have three levels here. Council, State and Federal. Surely we can be served by at least one of those.

 

[Amaris]

This is terribly topical in a way but I kind of like a system where (in a large country) various regions or states are assigned (something like your Electoral College) a representative 'State' number of votes. Yes I sympathise people are hurting because of the more recent election, but it is important to get inside the lives of citizens. Farming communities have different needs to city ones. Density of population translated to a popular vote trade off, seems so practical but is it fair?

Of course it's not just Federal Government that affects us. We have three levels here. Council, State and Federal. Surely we can be served by at least one of those.

Part of our problem is redistricting. It's based off of what gets the most votes for a particular party, rather than what the needs of those voters are. As a result, a representative is elected by those who will serve him or her the best, rather than what they can do for their constituents.

 

[MacLeod]

Just as a matter of curiosity, how do you score on this scale?

Academic qualifications are well and very good but you could have some one just as intelligent who does vocational work

That is in part what I was wondering the OP was questioning. Those in the policy decision making processes should be qualified and representative. .

Isn't it down to the voter to make that determination (or at least a group of voters) in a Parliamentary based system the executive is taken from members of the legislative so they can be voted out of office if the electorate in their constituency doesn't like the job they are doing.

 

[GNDN18]

I think this has been covered elsewhere.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Like all hierarchical systems, it's fine for the folks at the top and shite for everyone else. That the superior should rule the inferior is hardly a new idea. In spite of the repeated failure of such systems of government, there's always someone to come along with a better and more reliable way to identify the superior all the while in complete denial of the contempt for humanity that they are working from.

 

[Spot261]

Academic qualifications are well and very good but you could have some one just as intelligent who does vocational work

I think you are missing the point, that was the OP's own proposed scale of merit.....

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I agree what I am proposing is not at all complex, though most members who have commented/raised questions concerning this topic on this Forum and elsewhere (with few exceptions) are committing deep, fundamental misunderstandings. Now, on this forum, I have seen now at least two people who have some/enough grasp in order to have a fruitful discussion of the topic, while most members are nearly clueless as to what is being submitted and how it relates to our current societies socio-political organization in various areas. My contention is that individuals become so confined to the conditions they were raised into that it is very difficult to make conceptual leaps which break the Snow Globe World entrapment (much like the book/movie "The Giver").

You are one of the two members here (on TrekBBS) that actually has a grasp on what is being submitted (of those who have posted, that is). That puts you in the extreme minority, indeed (here & elsewhere). Most people never make it past the buzz word(s) "Oligarchy" vs. "Democracy"

There are many sensible objections to the Meritocratic Democracy, some of which have been explored on other forums that have progressed further than the present discussion here. Before reaching such a point in the conversation, basics have to covered & understood before moving forward. That is, one doesn't go on to Calculus before having a reasonably sound grip on Algebra. Now, for the member you are referring to, I could have a more in depth conversation with them. However, you and most others are nowhere near ready for such an undertaking.

It is interesting that you contend this to be conceptually on par with "Middle-School", as you are a standard example of those who have failed to comprehend the submission.

If we mere normals here at TrekBBS are not intellectually stimulating enough to entertain you or intelligent enough to grasp the unmitigated genius of the Political Science 101 term papers masquerading as discussion topics you've been posting here, you're more than welcome to show yourself to the door. It shouldn't be difficult for a thought-giant like yourself to open, as they have those easy access door levers on them instead of knobs so even simpletons like us can use them.

 

[Leviathan]

Russia seems to think so. They could not be more wrong.

What's this red dot on my chest? Hey it moves with me. What the hell is...<BLAM> <thud>

 

[Australis]

What is merit?

In religious circles, the higher up the person moves in the organisation, the more... prestige they accrue. They become more important. They have merit, more merit than others. And the people who are part of their religion are fine with that, and the lower downs in that become the ministers and other positions. But that government is a theocracy, and most people do not want to live in a theocracy.

Military men accrue merit. But no one wants a military government. Even the best are too strict for the average person.

Academics, across all disciplines, would have a better grasp of society than the above examples. But a lot of academics have gone from school, to college as students, then stay on as lecturers (personal experience), and never get any actual life experience. The ivory tower thing is real (of course not in all cases, but significantly). So life, as she is lived, can sometimes escape their purview.

What is merit?

There's a guy I know, great muso, his stuff's online, but his day job is a bricklayer. He's been doing it for decades, and he's good at it. Won awards. Another one I know became a tech college teacher because he was very good too. These are men of their hands. They have no qualifications. Maybe a license, but so do others who are, let's say, not as good. They pass a basic course. In a meritocracy, where do they fit in? Where is the acknowledgement of their merit?

And then, once you figure out how merit for each and every one of the whole cornucopia of professions, arts and skills is measured, and how many points to give each vote, by that time... we'll all have grown old. I mean, an artist. How do you measure art? Do you say art is not worth mentioning? Also, "who watches the watchers?" Who judges the judges?

So maybe, for now... maybe one person, one vote. That works. IF you have the gumption to get out there and vote. And think about the issues before. I cannot think of a more important thing a person can do than vote. And be responsible for their vote.

I like the idea of a meritocracy in theory, but there are many factors to weigh in, maybe too many.

One person, one vote. Do it properly, it works. When it isn't undermined by petty corruption, media manipulated by very vested interests, when the message is obscured in a thousand ways.

The lens, the view, has to be wider.

 

[rahullak]

IQ tests aren't any better...

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

What sort of mindset does one require to vote for the first option? Probably someone who is either a billionaire or who does not trust their own judgement and would prefer all the difficult decisions in life (or death) to be imposed upon them like an unthinking cog in a machine?

I live in a constitutional monarchy (UK), where the Queen exercises very little power, even though MPs, the Lords, and armed forces swear loyalty to the Crown. The aristocracy's influence is much diminished although money still exerts influence, mainly on the Conservatives mainly but probably to a far lesser extent than in the US.

Random brainfart aside: Apparently, British law now states we are UK citizens rather than subjects of Her Majesty. I did think it would be preferable to have a written constitution although, given the inertia to radical change that the US constitution appears to cause, perhaps it's just as well we don't. I have also gone off the idea of a British republic. Who knows what idiot we'd get stuck with as a president - Boris Johnson, Tony Blair or Jacob Rees-Mogg. Probably best to have a mainly figurehead president as in Ireland, Israel and Germany.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Constitutional monarchy seems to be the norm for kingdoms, duchies, and principalities. Absolute monarchies include Saudi Arabia and a few Middle Eastern Arab countries.

 

[Spot261]

What sort of mindset does one require to vote for the first option? Probably someone who is either a billionaire or who does not trust their own judgement and would prefer all the difficult decisions in life (or death) to be imposed upon them like an unthinking cog in a machine?

I live in a constitutional monarchy (UK), where the Queen exercises very little power, even though MPs, the Lords, and armed forces swear loyalty to the Crown. The aristocracy's influence is much diminished although money still exerts influence, mainly on the Conservatives mainly but probably to a far lesser extent than in the US.

Random brainfart aside: Apparently, British law now states we are UK citizens rather than subjects of Her Majesty. I did think it would be preferable to have a written constitution although, given the inertia to radical change that the US constitution appears to cause, perhaps it's just as well we don't. I have also gone off the idea of a British republic. Who knows what idiot we'd get stuck with as a president - Boris Johnson, Tony Blair or Jacob Rees-Mogg. Probably best to have a mainly figurehead president as in Ireland, Israel and Germany.

Actually I was thinking of running for office, but you outrank me.