[deleted]
Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
81–90 of 151 posts
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#82At least part of the problem is structural. One contributing factor could be that the US uses direct regional elections, instead of a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person, and the party decides the individuals who get elected. There's less of an emphasis on individual charisma, and charismatic leaders only need appear at the top of the ticket. A party with…
The US is supposed to be a representative republic. I suppose this is mostly theoretical, but we shouldn't be voting for Pepsi vs Coke, we should be voting for an individual to serve in our region as representative.
In direct response to the original post, Congress was not designed to invent a nation over and over again, it was designed to be a representation of regions. So scientists should represent regions where science is a major industry.
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#83Because by and large, scientists tend not to run for office.
As an engineer I am almost bored to tears when I think about running for political office and what the campaign and the job entails...it's likely that scientists just have more interesting things they can spend their time on.
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#84Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? The best democratic system in the world won't help anything if the population is not educated or interested enough to make an informed decision. Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people. The people who get elected are detached from the population to begin with. Being a "p…
We are in a position to change politics in this connected era, yet we don't do it. We need modern thinkers to propose new election systems, new forms of government, new ideologies more consonant with modern times.
It will take time, old school politicians are dying, new crops are learning the old tricks to perpetuate themselves in power. New ideas are emerging, people is getting sick of corruption, occupy movements gaining momentum, etc.
We just need strong voices and calls to action. Things need to change, and no matter what, things will change.
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#85Because our laws have been so overly complicated that we have come to believe that we need lawyers to write them.
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#86Many scientists are atheists or at the very least not strictly religious. It seems that you currently have to believe in God to be elected. Is this keeping many of them from even running?
Some states forbid Atheists from holding public office. Looking at current supreme court decisions where they differ everything back to state, these laws may stand if challenged. Only thing that has precedent is forcing religious tests, you can't force people take an oath as requirement for the spot.
I found this hard to believe, but:
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#87Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? The best democratic system in the world won't help anything if the population is not educated or interested enough to make an informed decision. Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people. The people who get elected are detached from the population to begin with. Being a "p…
> Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? Better than anything else we've tried. I could mention Pol Pot and I could mention the Soviet Union and so on, but I won't. All I'll say is, "When you fuck up a system of government, the results get bloody extremely fast."
Elections are the least worst system so far, but they are far from optimal.
In effect what we get is "second rate people recruiting third rate people". If you have ever had anything to do with the general public you will realize the average person is pretty stupid. That is why they so easily fall for all the lies politicians tell.
In particular the public consistently votes for deficit spending and the accumulation of unsustainable debt, short sighted policies and policies based on emotion rather than reason.
We need to find some way to skew the legislature towards people who are honest, and who are more than fast talking lawyers - people committed to rationality and sustainable policies.
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#88At least part of the problem is structural. One contributing factor could be that the US uses direct regional elections, instead of a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person, and the party decides the individuals who get elected. There's less of an emphasis on individual charisma, and charismatic leaders only need appear at the top of the ticket. A party with…
>In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person, and the party decides the individuals who get elected Are you sure "parliamentary system" is appropriate here? The UK has a parliamentary system[0] - and we vote for MPs, not parties, despite some people trying to change that. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
A parliamentary system is one in which the executive and legislative branches are one (EG if the president was a member of congress, and chosen by congress).
@lmkg seems to be referring to a proportional electoral system, not parliamentary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
As to the implication that proportional systems don't result in individuals representing constituencies or geographic regions, there are numerous hybrid systems that manage to achieve the best of both worlds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#89At least part of the problem is structural. One contributing factor could be that the US uses direct regional elections, instead of a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person, and the party decides the individuals who get elected. There's less of an emphasis on individual charisma, and charismatic leaders only need appear at the top of the ticket. A party with…
I'm actually not aware of any systems where they vote for a party. Could you give specific examples? A quick romp through Wikipedia yielded nothing, but I was probably searching through the wrong area.
ETA: davidkinkead appears to have done so.
Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some states forbid Atheists from holding public office. Looking at current supreme court decisions where they differ everything back to state, these laws may stand if challenged. Only thing that has precedent is forcing religious tests, you can't force people take an oath as requirement for the spot.
I found this hard to believe, but: Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court. Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of G…
Just ... wow. Whatever your religious stance, the United States rests on a continent that was colonized with flight from religious persecution as one of its FOUNDING reasons. I'm surprised that such requirements are listed, period. It seems like they danced around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause with their wording by simply declaring an entire binding philosophy of people [a]theist and [a]gnostic (where the letter in []'s is optional). Wow.