So the first issue with elections are the candidates themselves. All of them are good at public speaking and know how to use language to influence peoples thinking and to spin situations to their advantage. In fact they hire teams of people to help them do this. If you were truly an honest person wanting to benefit the population as a whole, you would not need a team of writers and lawyers to put words in your mouth.
Because I am Canadian, I will focus on how the system works (or doesn't) here in Canada. Lets start with the nomination process.
A prospective candidate must be a Canadian citizen who is at least 18 years of age on election day. A candidate may seek election in only one riding at a time; however, the candidate need not be a registered elector or even reside in that riding. (A riding is also known as a constituency or electoral district.)(1)There is your first problem. No educational, work experience or other requirements. You simply need to be a living person. It is possible in theory, then, to elect a person who is in a coma. (and we often do). The only thing a candidate has to do is appoint an agent and auditor. This is simply to keep a good record of financial records for the campaign. At least we have that so people have to track who donates funds and how much. There are some good things we do in Canada to ensure some accountability, but it is not enough.
I would suggest that a qualified political candidate should be an expert at something that contributes to the economy and is beneficial to society as a whole. A tradesman, doctor, nurse, teacher or somebody who has become an expert at whatever they do. It has been said that it requires 10,000 hours to become an expert at something. At 40 hours per week, that is 5 years of work experience. A career politician is an expert, but that is a role that is not beneficial, or good for the economy. A politician should also never be a lawyer. Lawyers are by definition experts of misdirection and confusion. Their job is to win arguments and defend whoever they represent (often themselves) within the rules of law to obtain a decision in the courts that most benefits their client. Since government is the body that determines what the rules of law will be; we cannot have the lawyers making up the rules. Its the same as having criminals determine the best way they should be punished. (Look at our prison system. We are heading that way quickly)
So basically, the majority of the pool of people that seek nomination and election are those who choose not to become experts in anything truly useful to society. Many have law degrees and therefore should not be allowed to run in the first place. (Yes lawyers are useful to society, but not as political representatives of the people)
We now have the nominated candidates to choose from. They spend donated money to advertise and convince the population that they are the best person to represent them. This is a fallacy. The political candidates are actually applying for the job of spending your tax dollars in a way that best benefits you and the rest of society as a whole. They work for us. But yet this elected body sets their own wages, they get expense accounts and a budgeted allotment of our money to spend in running their office etc. See if you can convince your boss to let the staff determine their wages, and spend the company revenue how they see fit. If he does, then you probably work for an elected official.
So anyways, on election day (another travesty, I'll get into later) we have the right to choose who will be allowed to spend our tax dollars. We sometimes have several choices, but rarely is any of them an ideal choice. If they were applying to work for you in a business you owned, you probably would not hire any of them, yet we are forced to choose one. It has been put forward that you need to exercise your right to vote and choose the candidate who you think is the best for the job. What if none of them are even remotely qualified in your opinion? You don't have the option to vote for none of the above. You can spoil your ballot, but that just removes your vote from the count. May as well stay home. I honestly think that if the 'None of the Above' option were on the ballot, that option would get the most votes. AND because politicians rely on somebody being elected in order to earn an overpaid income, they won't put that on the ballot. It's a rigged system.
So this is the reason I rarely vote. I go vote if there is a remote chance that a total idiot might win, then I make sure I vote for a less idiotic candidate. VERY rarely is there actually a candidate who I think would make a true difference, that has happened once since I turned 18. The candidate got into government, however they were not part of the party who won majority, but at least they have a voice in the house.
Now the election is over, and we say that majority rules and the people elected have the support of the majority. Lies, misdirection and deceptive language. Look at your voter turn out. Add the people who did not vote, the spoiled ballots and those that actually voted into the numbers and you will see that out of all the possible voters, those that got elected did NOT have the backing of the majority.
In 2011 we held a federal election. 61% of the eligible voters turned out, and the winning party got 39.6% of the popular vote. So in fact they got 24% of the eligible vote. NOT a majority since 76% of the eligible voters did not vote for them. How is it that if 76% of the population does not support them, they still are able to run our country?
The system does not work.
People will tell me that if everybody voted then the system would work just fine. Well no, it won't. You don't have the option to say that none of the candidates are good enough. We also don't have the ability to fire the person we hired before the next election. Here in Alberta if I hire someone, either party can terminate the employment without cause within the first 3 months. Why is it that politicians are guaranteed employment for the entire term? (unless something extreme happens)
Let us enter a hypothetical world where elections actually make a difference.
We make the vote mandatory. (Failure to vote penalty would be 1000 hours of community service). But we also include the "None of the Above" option.
Either a qualified candidate gets voted in by the majority, or none of them are voted in.
OH NO! nobody got elected! what happens now. Well, nothing bad. We simply don't have a functional government. (no different than the current dis-function). So your riding elected to go with none of the above. Now the citizens must decide if they will remain un-represented or if they would like to choose somebody else to represent them. If the community decides they want representation, they will need to choose new candidates and go through the process again.
Oh the cost you say. Well our current system of paper ballots and cardboard boxes is antiquated and really quite silly with our current technological state. We can easily set up a computer based system that can be used over and over again. We have the technology to know in real time what the counts are without human error or recounts or any of the other issues that crop up because of the antiquated system we now use.
We'll now turn this over for discussion. I don't have the answers as to how to make this work perfectly, but our current system is simply no longer effective.
Russel Brand makes some good points here as well. Most of which I agree with.
