Since the founding of the American nation, its citizens have prospered, as well as suffered, under a system of democracy. Some may call this system a success while others believe a system of anarchy would be equally efficient. The truth is, most Americans have not experienced the adversities found in other forms of government, such as communism or totalitarianism, and take for granted the hard earned freedoms and liberties they are allowed. In my opinion, the system itself is fantastic; I am able to speak my mind, write what I want, own property, elect officials, freely practice religion, etc. All of these things are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - just one of the many written documents that help moderate American government. These documents are transferred to "commoners" by electing officials who administer/interpret laws and rights, as well as deal with foreign affairs and the economy. I believe the root of flaws in American government is...the election process and government officials.
In terms of the actual election process, citizens have asked "why vote when my vote doesn't actually count?" What are they talking about?! Of course their vote counts....doesn't it? Unfortunately the answer to that question isn't as simple as it should be, just ask Al Gore. In the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes versus George W. Bush's 50,456,002, but, lost the electoral vote with 266 votes versus Bush's 271 all thanks to the wonderful electoral college system. The system allows all citizens, 18 years of age and older, to vote for his or her candidate of choice. Each state views who received the most votes and then representatives (number based on population) from that candidate's political party vote for their candidate of choice. Those are the deciding votes which sometimes fail to agree with the national majority, but hey, it's only a democracy and I still have yet to cover the effect from government officials.
Government officials are human beings, human beings have flaws. Therefore, a flawless government is next to impossible. If one conducted a background check on each candidate running for a government position he would find that the majority are from wealthy, prestigious families and most likely majored in some branch of law. Lawyers are known for being able to state cases in a conniving way that will persuade the listener to take their side. In an election they could use this ability to twist their view on a topic to appeal to the majority and, once elected, follow the true meaning of their words. Also, one might see that those living lives of luxury find paying taxes easier than citizens of the middle, working class or that certain groups with wealthy members are receiving special treatment. Coincidence? I think not.
Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner, addresses the topic of incentives, or "any factor that provides a motive for a particular course of action". This explains the special attention received by groups with extremes such as the wealthy or those suffering extreme poverty. The incentive with assisting the wealthy is a nice reward written on a piece of paper to be stuck in one's pocket for later use; the incentive for helping the poor is positive publicity to be witnessed by the world. With the American economy on the descent, it is clear that incentives are becoming more financially based and trust in the government is following the economical trend downward. If Americans want change, they have the right to protest, they have the right to run for office, and they have the right to leave the country. My advice to fix government flaws is to fix the system that elects officials and to rewrite the typical background of candidates.
That is:
1) Base the election on the popular vote; encourage people to vote by ensuring that their vote actually counts!
2) Introduce scientific/mathematical candidates to future ballots!
3) Degrade the importance of money in our society; advertise the importance of happiness based on non-financial incentives.
If the world can find alternative energy, America can find alternative finances.
Special thanks to Wikipedia for 2000 Presidential Election data & the official definition of "incentives".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Nice blog! I am curious how you see a capitalist system working if money is not an incentive.
Wow! You are already doing a great job with these blogs. that being said, there are a few trivial things to ponder further.
why introduce math or scientists as candidates, when the population is already electing lawyers to fill these positions without major objection? can a world really survive without money as it does in Start Trek? Can people really work to just better mankind or do they need monetary incentives because we have not mentally evolved past that mindset?
Where is your conclusion?
You are off to a great start.
-Van Der Bur
Nice job, you introduce a lot of new concepts I don't often come across. I like what you said about "Government officials are human beings, human beings have flaws. Therefore, a flawless government is next to impossible." I totally agree. I think that the system isn't corrupt, the people are.
I don't however follow what you say about scientific and math candidates for future ballots. Wouldn't that be similar to asking why english majors aren't working for engineering firms? If people want to enter politics, don't they go to college for political science or some humanities degree? How often do people who recieve a degree in science or math want to enter politics? I do however agree that our politicians need a more diverse background. I agree that it would be nice to see politicians with a more science/math based background, so they can understand issues that are intertwined with politics, such as stem cell research and global warming.
I think that in Utopia, downplaying the importance of money would be ideal. However, going off your first statement that humans are flawed, I don't think we can realistically acheive an economy without financial incentives. Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't our entire capitalist economy based on monetary incentives and rewards for those who use ingenuity with their finances?
But still, a really good blog. New ideas, and definitely original!
Don't know much about "blogging" but....I feel you've brought out some good points and interesting ideas. In light of what's been happening this past week with our country's potential economic "crisis", it raises attention to "flaws" in government/lack of in dealing with one of the main financial engines of this country.
What type of individual would be best as a presidential canidate?How about a "jack of all trades" !!
Well done. You have good background for your statements and have not let your emotions rule.
You should consider term limits to change elected officials on a regular basis as an additional way to get better government. For example, people like Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank could be considered to have overstayed their welcome in Congress - they request expensive projects to benefit their state (Boston's Big Dig, an engineering nightmare and fiscal disaster)and get the bills passed due to "senority."
Post a Comment