I have a conspicious habit of derailing threads beyond all recognition, Where Wolf? lol.
I had considered the other side of the optimum population theory, that a smaller population may well be even easier to manipulate, and you have added some good points against that philosophy. It has occured to me many times that if we were in a true democracy, where those in power didn't force their will and what's right on the people at least some of the time, things would go tits up. I hadn't heard of Californians voting against taxation, that sounds like a very clever referenda to allow which would obviously break such a system of direct democracy down. One thing I did know, was that in the UK currently, if there was a referendum on the death penalty tomorrow the majority of people would like to bring it back. Sure, that's democratic, but allowing the state to kill undesirables to me is unacceptable, so I am glad the state has taken a totalitarian stance towards it.
I don't mind the long post, I have found your ideas on this very useful and interesting. How would you improve democracy, or would you do away with it completely? Obviously in a perfect world I would be a dictator, but let's put that to one side for a minute :D
[edit] This chatter can stop if and be deleted if you like? It does follow a thread roughly, because I started talking about the Chinese internet censorship, which is no secret. Bit of a confusing one really. Apparently the aim of these undercover FBI people is to push threads like these off of the front page, but also to derail them, which one is it? I will make a more concerted effort to talk in clearly defined brackets just how everyone else does in real life though.
Nah, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't do away with (liberal, representative) 'democracy' completely - Churchill (not someone I often quote) had it right in describing it as 'the worst form of government except for all the others.). In general terms, I don't see much that can be done at a theoretical/philosphical level to 'improve' the situation - all I have are a few vague policy ideas...
1) Representation: virtually any electoral system other than first past the post/simple plurality. This, though, is a dead issue in the UK for a generation or so after the AV referendum became a referendum on Nick Clegg. The Single Transferable Vote system is probably the most genuinely representative and functional system out there, but it doesn't really matter now.
2) A commitment to evidence-based policy in all areas, including crime, and, you guessed it, drugs. An independent entity to review political manipulation of scientific data concerning health, crime, energy policy et cetera composed of credible academics themselves subject to peer review.
3) A press that isn't staffed by braindead, craven and gullible idiots, lacking specialist knowledge of anything but manipulation and bribery. One, moreover, that just turns the camera off when politicians repeat themselves and evade questions. Let's clone Paxman.
4) An independent, representative judiciary subject to dismissal, in criminal cases, for clearly partial verdicts (i.e. sentences given to last year's rioters).
5) An end to arbitrary search and seizure, an absolute right to silence, a police complaints commission with teeth.
6) Bicameral paraliamentarianism with some proportion of the upper chamber (i.e. a reformed Lords), selected, as with Jury Service, essentially by lot. I know, it sounds crazy - but then current Lords Reform proposals (15 year terms? staggered elections?) are, too. I'd go for a mix of the Irish Senate, a 'jury of peers', and direct proportional elections making up 50% of the revising chamber/upper house.
7) Stricter campaign finance laws & limits on election expenditure. A recognition (in the US) that money (campaign donations) and speech are not synonymous and thus entitled to the same legal protection, a blanket ban on current or former elected officials ever working for institutions or individuals heavily reliant on government support and subject to governmental regulation - i.e. banks, pharmaceutical and arms companies, et cetera. This would, I think, go a long way towards ending transatlantic 'corporate welfare,' and would make holding office a matter of public service, rather than careerism (at least to an extent).
8) An education system that isn't underfunded, provincial and addicted to testing.
9) A general governmental scepticism towards standardisation, whether in educational testing or the use of statistics.
10) Electronic surveillance of individuals as the exception, not the norm, subject to intense judicial oversight, with government abuse of surveillance punishable by custodial sentence. Under such a regime, most of our recent office holders in the UK and US would be inside. And only about 80% of them belong there. Still, you can't make borscht without chopping a few beets.
Again, a long post - I'm rambling and avoiding work/worries about a benzo taper I can't seem to stick to. One last thing for now: I oppose the death penalty as implemented in the US, China, and most other countries that are notorious for it, but not in all cases. I don't think it was wrong to hang Adolf Eichmann, for example, and while extra-judicial executions are in principle indefensible, google 'Herberts Cukurs' and see if you can really, honestly, condemn his assasination. A death penalty for genocide seems to me reasonable - if the proper safeguards could be put in place. Given the difficulty of establishing guilt, though (Eichmann being an exception), I suspect such a penalty would be used, if a reasonable doubt provision existed, a few times a century.
