I want to start a new political party. One that's based on the current principles we have now, but abstracted.
I know your tiny Yea Forumstard minds are difficult to keep entertained for too long but hear me out.
A political party where each member votes on what the beliefs are, but they are only able to vote if they pass a test based on their knowledge on the subject they're voting on.
After the party has had a vote then the members will unanimously back the idea that won regardless of their own personal beliefs.
Tell me why this is a bad idea and how can I refine this.
That’s retarded why would people back policies they disagree with, they’d just join another party
Carson Johnson
people will be sore losers, especially on a subject they misunderstand
Xavier Rivera
Fuck off to /pol douche bag
Mason Reyes
good idea but i am arledy bored.
Carson Bennett
That's the point. At the end of the day we're being pigeonholed into backing parties that are a collective set of beliefs. If I want better gun control I have to increase taxes. If I want less taxes I have to give up abortion.
It's a way to avoid having to back any single party. If shit doesn't work we'd find out and just re-vote on the issue.
Juan Campbell
How would a party of traps bronys pedos and weebs function?
Wyatt Bennett
Well it'd have to have a paradigm shift. The whole basis of the party is you'd have to lose to win. Everyone loses something, but everyone will win as a collective or at least that's what would ideally happen.
At the current moment there's a back and forth pendulum swing that's creating violent rifts because everyone has to back a set of beliefs whereas a party such as this one can pick and choose a position on every belief individually with the added flexibility of being able to re-vote on a certain issue should the current solution not work out.
Charles Sullivan
what if the majority decides something completely opposite to your beliefs? what if it decides on supression or elimination of the minority?
who decides who is "knowledgable" enough? What is suitable "knowledge"?
i think you've got to look into more deeply about the democratic process in general, and maybe even how hitler subverted weimar germany, to see the fragilities of your theory.
>After the party has had a vote then the members will unanimously back the idea that won regardless of their own personal beliefs.
I think lenin had some similar ideas when he proposed how the soviets should work, and we know how beautifully that worked
Isaiah Rivera
i would add that the knowledge test can be rigged to exclude people or given a slant to make it appear that way. anyways you're describing how the government should work.
If a belief that is against my own has been chosen then I would have no choice to back it because we need to move in a direction.
The problem with the current lot is inaction. We never get shit done. And whether or not something is ethical we'll find out in the future.
As for who decides who is "knowledgeable" enough each issue should have a panel of subject matter experts consisting of people who are both for, against, and in between each issue.
Jaxson Scott
roll
Adrian Green
I would also add that the idea is not fully fleshed out, and that's why I'm collecting ideas how to refine it.
Currently every country with the same system has the same issue of people having to pigeonhole themselves to a certain set of beliefs. This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out how to solve.
Camden Myers
Two trips in the same thread says this is a good plan
Daniel James
How about we establish a new party, except it has the goal of establishing a theocratic dictatorship where I am God.
Michael Cruz
This is a serious thread. If you have any ideas, please share them. Otherwise, please keep it serious.
Josiah Watson
I'm not demeaning your point of view, but you seem to be prioritizing national mobilization or unity over freedom of speech or conscience. This is essentially what collectivist ideologies, such as fascism or communism, expound.
Allow me to explain: when you say we need to move to one direction, we need to get shit done, necessarily people that wish to move to another direction will be supressed, thus their freedom will be supressed for the greater good. Even if you detest communism and fascism, it is undeniable they got shit done, whether it is genocide or massive construction projects.
I agree that current tensions in western society have made the whole democratic process untenable, you claim that a "pendulum" is at fault, I say that it is radicalism that has caused it.
Back to your theory: let's say some radical leftists get a hold of one of these comitees, and they name themselves for one side, and some lighter version of their theory for the other. Liberal ideas will be immediately characterized and "abominable" or "stupid" theories, maybe in the same way we nowadays claim that everything that nazis expounded is abominable, such as racism or eugenics.
Cameron Howard
I am quite serious.
Angel Ross
>paradigm shift Exactly, never gonna happen.
John Scott
rolling for the third trips
Joshua Brooks
So what's the solution? Is there even a solution?
Adam Ward
take up arms and create a white ethnostate!
joking
let me try to refine your theory: instead of the function of government to be to get shit done, its function should be to simply guarantee essential rights, maybe something like a nights watchman state or so-called minarchist state. the "getting shit done" will be up to individual citizens, whether it is him wanting to work hard and produce something useful, or being gay and get rumped up the butt.
problem of "progress" is that it radically changes to whoever looks at it. i'm sure hitler would say we've been living in a terrible dark age since the end of wwii.
your rule by commitee idea could be used when hiring people to work in the government, or even electing people, as you've suggested. but the government should have a limited exercise of its powers, that wouldn't be able to change whatever people come to power.
what you say?
Angel Clark
I think it could work. Thanks for the input. I'll post again once I've taken this into account and hopefully can come up with a better ideas.
I agree that the government should have limited exercise of its powers, though.
Nicholas Cruz
Literally the only effective party platform is the destruction of your chief opponents. It doesn't matter how you do it, but you should think about long term survival of the regime you put into place.
Kayden Harris
cool. new question: what would be the govt allowed to control? police force? monetary policy? should we go a step further, go for education and healthcare? just food for thought
When a lot of politics comes down to what will be 'good' and good is subjective, you end up in a system that says 'if you don't agree wtih your view then you can't vote, essentially intersectional identity politics but pretending to be based off of knowledge. Can people all vote on immigration if they all know all the various statistics? is there basically a study program?
