What do you mean "what would happen to the dumb people?" Why would anything happen to the dumb people? I am just switching the selection criteria we already have from money, fame, and connections to merit-based pre-selection and then popular voting. There would still be Constitutional standards, removal procedures, and ways to redress grievances, and you still vote on candidates. It's not a dictatorship. The judiciary would still be independent and serve the same function. The only real change is the legislative composition based on different standards instead of the current system of fame, connections, and wealth for running.

The average person shouldn't have much say about polices that require technical knowledge. If it's a non-technical issue, there could be a dual system for that.

__________________

I support some forms of Technocratic Market Socialism, but I wouldn't say I support Communism. I don't think its practical, nor do I agree with some Technocrats ideas about abolishing private property, and energy credits the way they use them I need to do more research on.

__________________

Oh okay. Thank you for clearing that up.

Would you settle for a drumstick-shaped piece of tofu for your Thanksgiving dinner? Or would you prefer real turkey? If the latter, can you understand why many of us would have severe reservations about a "quasi-democratic process"?

You seem to hold the average Joe (or Jo) in quite low esteem. Would it be fair to say that you just don't believe that most Americans are up to the task of sustaining a workable democracy? (By the way, that might be considered a pretty good working definition of elitism.)

Whenever I see the word "bureaucracy" alarm bells go off.

The problem with a meritocracy, or technocracy as you call it, is that there is no guarantee that those that are technically skilled are not always the ones most fit to govern. For example, how would knowledge of physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, or mathematics aid one in governing a nation? It wouldn't. The only professions that might be fit to rule would be lawyers, judges, and historians, and the first two are where we get our politicians now.

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

Well, you wouldn't have a mathematician guiding all types of legislation. Specific committees would have experts relevant to policy decisions, such as economists, logicians, ethicists, engineers (for problems that can be solved via engineering), ecologists, etc. They share information, but you wouldn't have an ecologist in isolation making policy regarding a non ecological issue.

Healthcare professionals in combination with economists would govern healthcare legislation to produce the most efficient welfare product. An astronomer would have little say in the legislation. That's for a different scientific committee.

I do think judges and lawyers would have a proper role, but more so in the judiciary and professional juries.

Scientists tend to be more intelligent and logical on average than your average person, so they have access to many skill sets, thought processes your average politician doesn't have. Even if we ignore the qualification aspect, I would rather have them making policy than a random elected official who was a communications major or some fluff degree.

I don't really have much faith in the average person, no. Average Joe voted in Bush twice. And he's a complete moron. They wanted him because he's "like them" and "down to earth" acting. He gives off the impression that he's also one of the gang. I think that's a problem. I dislike populism in general.


By quasi, I mean that the system is tweaked from what it is now. How do you choose who really runs for office? Wealth. Power. Connections. Before you see them at the primary, they are already there. In both the primaries and the national elections, it's difficult to get on the ballot if you aren't a part of the "good old boys club." After that, you get to the big one: the electoral college. Even the founding fathers never truly trusted the average person with a popular vote. I am just advocating a different screening process for the candidates you vote for. When have you seen many poor unconnected, anti-old guard folks get elected to be senators, presidents, etc? They almost all are. And many of these people are elected, but it's a pretty low fraction of the population when you factor in those who can't vote, don't vote as well as the percent of those who did vote they actually got.

America is a crappy democracy if you were to consider it one.

Of course, change like this would NEVER happen sans some catastrophe and desperation. Change is too radical.

Perhaps the Technocratic system could be a dual house system somewhat like the British Parliament. Instead of the house of commons and the house of lords, you could have a Technocratic High Council and a House of Reps. The latter drafts legislation based on non-technical issues and proposes policy desires and suggestions to the technical committees who work on actual issues of efficiency and welfare maximization upon general concern areas. The House of Reps can be, as it is now, popularly elected based on standard criteria. A hybrid system. The judiciary would have judicial review, reviewing legislation for Constitutionality. The rep-house could bring up legislative impeachment procedures and have the power of removal in conjunction with judicial approval.

To an extent, some of the ideas are similar to the plan advocated by Alexander Hamilton.

__________________

When you've explained this in the past, I just didn't get it. This thread has made me understand it a lot more, and I have to say that it makes a lot of sense. Those Gattica elements seem to have disappeared from my viewpoint of this.

Thanks for making this more clear, you and the other posters.

__________________

Well, I have modified it. I actually pay attention to what you say and compromise. I still support transhumanism and voluntary foetal screening, , though.

__________________

Techno wrote: That's not true. Remember, Al Gore had the popular vote in one of those elections.

Now THAT is 100% accurate. :DD

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."