Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

How can we fix government? (U.S.)

<< < (5/6) > >>

steeladept:
Maybe we're "talking past each other", and we don't really disagree so much, I don't know. ;)
-JavaJones (July 01, 2010, 03:20 PM)
--- End quote ---

I think this is probably quite accurate.  I agree, we probably would find very little difference and, in fact, may be looking at exactly the same thing from two different angles.

The two party system is disaffecting and alienating for a potentially large proportion of voters, even if many/most do ultimately cleave to a particular party. How many people are *happy* about that choice, and happy with all representatives of their party? This reality contributes to voter apathy, surely there can be little doubt about that.

--- End quote ---
I would agree with this in general as well, but I do not believe that more parties (and certainly not less!) would fix it at all.  I also don't believe that there will ever be a situation where any given group of people (of a reasonably large size such as a voting block) do not have a significant portion alienated or disillusioned as you pointed out.  It is a given that people in this situation will adhere to the least offensive position as no group will always agree on everything.  The only representation that doesn't have this is when you are representing yourself.

You seem to claim that voter apathy (great word that I have been looking for by the way :up:) is caused by, and a symptom of, the system being broke.  I propose that the voter apathy is the problem that causes the system to appear broke.  It is just the founding premise that we disagree on.

CWuestefeld:
I suggest that this weekend we all remember that we're not just celebrating the "Fourth of July" as it says on the calendar. We're celebrating Independence Day. I hope everyone can spend at least a moment reflecting on what that independence means.

A bit of quotation from The Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
--- End quote ---

Read the whole thing yourself, it will only take a few minutes. I think you'll find a lot in there that will strike a chord today.

Paul Keith:
You seem to claim that voter apathy (great word that I have been looking for by the way) is caused by, and a symptom of, the system being broke.  I propose that the voter apathy is the problem that causes the system to appear broke.  It is just the founding premise that we disagree on.
--- End quote ---

I'd like to introduce a third option: Voter apathy is the problem that causes the system to appear more broken than it is which then results in voting apathy. (A situation where a person's vote holds less value to them than their vote on which person becomes the next Reality TV star)

Paul Keith:
Interesting new answer from those who don't keep up with the Quora link:

Jonathan Joseph said:

I'm going to go a different route here. Campaign finance reform, lobbying restrictions and the other suggestions already in this thread are all good suggestions, but the most effective thing we can do to fix government is to bring private sector principles to the public sector. Yes, shockingly, sort of what W had suggested .

Anyone who has ever worked in a non-public sector job knows that career and financial success are, more or less, directly tied to performing some task a combination of better/faster/cheaper than either other people in your organization or in competing organizations. Managers incentivize employees based on relevant metrics for success and the result is free market capitalism being the Darwinistic engine that has propelled American greatness.

But the government, and any organization funded by the public sector, does not work that way. When you work for the public sector, you can't get promoted faster for doing better work than the person next to you and you can't make any more money for doing a job twice as good as the next guy.

Your performance is irrelevant, all that matters is your place on the annual-budget food chain. Congress allocates $X for your organization this year in the budget. That's how public sector power is allocated, how much budget $ you are allocated. So what's the incentive to do it better/faster/cheaper? All you can do is lose budget, lose power.

I assume that at this point, a number of you are thinking that I am off on a bizarre tangent. So here I'll add that I spent 7 years at In-Q-Tel, making investments in startups that were developing technology relevant to the Intelligence Community. On regular occasions I tried to introduce cutting edge technologies to users at relevant government agencies and was told that there was no benefit to better/faster/cheaper. Or "we don't work that way". I'll spare the government the embarassment of getting into specifics, but trust me you'd be appalled by some of the examples. This is not nickle-and-dime stuff either, we are talking about potentially saving $billions from just what I have seen.

This explains perfectly why every government agency continually grows in size and budget and all are completely inept (FEMA? MMS? SEC w/ Madoff?). It's what they are incentivized to do.

Slap a P&L on every Federal Agency and allow free market-principled compensation for Federal employees (this would need to be done delicately and subject to regulation, however) and you'd see things turn around much faster than anyone thinks. There are easy answers, they just won't work in the current environment.
--- End quote ---

JavaJones:
So the question remains: where did voter apathy come from? And how do we solve it? Whether it is inherently a system problem or not, we still need to solve it. Unless we want a monarchy, dictatorship, or other form of government which doesn't require popular participation. :D

I generally agree that lack of proper incentive in government is a problem, but honestly I think that's true in the corporate world too. Look at the dot com crash, the prior housing crash, the more recent economic crisis, etc, etc. Many, many businesses *do not* have incentive to do the "right thing". Our system doesn't provide such incentive. So how do we fix that? I don't know the answer there either. ;) 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.

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page