Monday, 11 April 2011

Democracy does not work.

The reason I say this is simple: Because (the majority of) people vote for what they think is best for them, rather than what a more educated (or specialised) person may know is best for them.

For example:
People will vote to lower taxes, because they don't like paying them.
People will then demand better healthcare, despite the lower budget.
People will then complain to keep cigarettes cheap, so they can smoke as many as they want.
People will then expect the NHS to give them expensive operations, free of charge, after they damage their health by smoking.
People will then complain about how the NHS is in debt.
In makes no sense!!
If medical/financial experts made all the big decisions (even if it was against the general public's will), money would be spent far more sensibly.

Another example:
Some people vote to go on the Euro, because they want to be part of a more united Europe.
Other people vote to stay off the Euro, because they like the idea of a "British" currency.
This is all irrelevant to the real issue!!
If financial experts were the only ones responsible for making this decision, even if it went against the general public's will, we could go on/stay off the Euro for purely financial reasons!

My idea for how to solve the problem:
What if democracy were taken to a more advanced level, where only specialists in various subjects were allowed to vote for what choices our country takes?

We could have a "voters society for healthcare", a "voters society for finance", a "voters society for crime", etc. (These are just rough ideas, obviously - they could be fine tuned.)

In order to become a member of one of these societies, you would have to pass a fairly short educational course on the topic - to show that you have enough of an understanding to be able to vote intelligently.
And to save time, some people would get automatic membership - e.g. doctors can vote for healthcare, bankers can vote for finance, etc.

We would still have political parties/a prime minister, who everyone could vote for, but their primary roll would become more about public speaking than actually making big decisions.
In fact, to be honest, looking confident on camera is exactly what the general election is increasingly becoming about anyway!

So yeah, that's my rough idea. But I'm hungover and I can't be bothered to proof-read this. 

1 comment:

  1. Does not work in the actual state of the "world". Democracy appeals to the masses' will. nowadays masses are stupid, they are lead by media. Media is manipulated by unscrupulous shallow scumbags with deep emotional problems and unexplainable hunger for "power".