I find it fascinating when people insist a system is inadequate because there is not enough incentive, because it isn't user friendly enough, yada, yada. You can provide all the incentives you want and people will not do something if it requires effort (a perfect proven example is exercise - companies pay for gyms and/or gym memberships that just go unused because it takes effort to use them). Education can only take you so far, just as incentives. For this reason, I am not wholly opposed to the test idea, as there are many who would not bother to take the test and, therefore, would be the same who would not bother enough to learn about the system as to actually be able to use it. It is the same egotistical self-centeredness that these people feel it is up to the system to make itself useful to them rather than making them learn to make it useful to them.
Note, I am not saying anyone in particular is one of these egotistical self-centered persons, including (especially?) posters here, just pointing out a fallacy of this idea that the system is somehow faulty just because fewer and fewer people understand it/put it to use as designed.
-steeladept
I'm not saying the system is inadequate for any specific reason, nor because I want to put blame in a more "comfortable" place, or any other bad reasoning. I'm saying it because it's nearly impossible to change *people* on a massive scale without something else (like a "system") that operates on a massive scale. It could be some "viral meme" that makes voting cool, it could be a fundamental change to the voting process, hell it could be a total cultural revolution. But you're not going to change *people* just by wishing or even legislating that they are smarter, more participatory, etc. nor can you do it through education.
Your example of exercise is itself a red herring. Think about it, 100 years ago we didn't really have gyms and fad diets, yet obesity wasn't a problem. Why? Because the system(s) of the time made exercise essentially a prerequisite for living. The system, in this case our lifestyle, is broken and that's why exercise is so hard and people are so fat and unhealthy. Not that things 100 years ago were great, don't get me wrong. It's *not* good to have to put in back-breaking effort 10-16 hours a day every day, not at all. But neither is the option to have a life where you can literally sit around all day, every day (whether on a couch at home or in an office chair).
We are creatures that evolved out of millions of years of living in a fairly specific way. Although the results of that evolution are malleable, particularly due to our intellectual capacity, that doesn't mean it's easy to change. At the very least we need be aware of where we've come from and what our evolutionary circumstances predispose us to (e.g. war - chimps do it too). It's complex though, because it's not enough just to try to "act as we have evolved to" - in many cases our evolved behaviors are not "desirable" to modern people.
It's not an easy question to answer. Sometimes I feel like changes to the system - term limits, campaign contribution controls, instant run-off voting, abolishment of lobbyists (um, yeah, why is this job *legal*??), and removal of rights of personhood for corporations - will be enough, but sometimes I'm not so sure. And even if doing some of those things *were* enough, even just one of them is such a big undertaking that I may not even see a single one accomplished in my life time. *sigh*
- Oshyan
Recent Posts
But I would not say that applying business principles to business would necessarily result in an overall improvement. Increasing efficiency and effecitveness are critical goals, but the methods we use to achieve them are open for discussion.