Scott Adams Proposes a Fourth Branch of Government

LoLobey writes "Dilbert creator Scott Adams is proposing a fourth branch of government in the WSJ. He describes it as 'smallish and economical, operating independently, with a mission to build and maintain a friendly user interface for citizens to manage their government.' It's a humorous article with some interesting ideas including internet access as a constitutional right and a constitutional ban on all election contributions for any candidate that polls above 10%. He's primarily proposing a method of getting verifiably accurate information on various issues to aid voters in making decisions, but despairs on his own blog about reader's comments on the article."

Comments

Better idea

[MrEricSir]

How about getting rid of corruption? Corporate donations, professional lobbyists, etc.

Just make it flat out illegal, and consider it treason.

Re:Better idea

[Jeng]

Isn't corruption already illegal?

Also, can you please point out an example of a government that is less corruptible than our own?

Re:Better idea

[chainsaw1]

Assuming "our own" is the United States, there are twenty according to this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_index

Re:Better idea

[Enderandrew]

Campaign donations not spent in a campaign can be pocketed afterwards, so there is a legal way to basically bribe any politician.

I believe Australia makes it illegal to give money to politicians, period. The government gives parties money to run the elections. Politicians are well paid, so you don't get all the private-sector failures. But they can't be bribed.

Re:Better idea

[Riceballsan]

How will this solve anything. Candidate approaches, gets donations from ____ corporation to help him win, makes changes beneficial to ____ corporation, finishes his term, goes to work for ____ corporation with a huge sign on bonus.

Re:Better idea

[Jeng]

Nope, all you do is turn elections into lottery's for people who are backed by corporations while also making sure that those whom get elected this way don't know enough about how the government works to be effective on their own so they end up being reliant on the lobbyists.

Re:Better idea

[Attila Dimedici]

OK, first of all, corruption is already illegal. If you can demonstrate a quid pro quo, it is a violation of the law.
Now, let's examine your particulars. You want to outlaw corporate donations. What this means is that I cannot pool my money with a bunch of like minded people and form a corporation for the purpose of influencing the actions of government officials. That means you would prefer to see the fabulously wealthy have even greater influence over the decisions made by the government.
You want to outlaw professional lobbyists. That means that I cannot hire someone who knows the ins and outs of government to get my concerns heard by the government official/legislator who can most likely address those issues. That means once again that the fabulously wealthy would have even greater influence over the decisions made by the government than they do already.
The system is abused, but the mistake you are making is thinking that the powerful do not want this sort of thing. The result of campaign finance reform has been to make it harder to unseat incumbents. That means that politicians spend even more time in the seats of power associating with the rich and connected and less time (as a percentage of their life) associating with the common citizen.

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't corruption already illegal?

Also, can you please point out an example of a government that is less corruptible than our own?

If by "our own" you mean the government of the United States of America, then I can point to several less corruptible governments including:

Denmark
New Zealand
Singapore
Finland
Sweden
Canada
Netherlands
Australia
Switzerland
Norway

While I might be taking a bit of liberty in the interpretation (this is Slashdot after all), this is based on Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results)

"The 2010 CPI measures the degree to which public sector corruption is perceived to exist in 178 countries around the world"

Re:Better idea

[Intropy]

My first thought was that corruption is already illegal.

My second thought was that making something illegal doesn't stop it from being done.

Then I saw "Corporate donations, professional lobbyists, etc." Your examples of "corruption" aren't corruption at all. You just want to shut up people you don't like.

Re:Better idea

[steelfood]

There are free speech issues at play here. An individual (not corporation) can still purchase air time on television to endorse that person's preferred candidate. Even if banning non-human entities from political speech, it still gives an unfair advantage to those who have money.

The only defense against corruption is education. The most corrupt governments are also in nations with a poorly educated populace. And it's not a cause-effect relationship, but worse: a vicious cycle. Poor education leads to government corruption which leads to even worse education.

Conversely, an informed (and non-apathetic) populace will result in an accountable government. As this is the information age, the populace should be more informed, not less. Yet, because of an inability to separate information from disinformation brought about by poor primary and secondary education, the populace is actually significantly more misinformed than it ever has been before (it's important to not confuse uninformed with misinformed here, because while the former damages the system through a lack of action, the latter causes damage through negative actions, and is much worse).

Everything else is just skirting the real problem. Sure, it'll help. But only if the primary problem gets resolved.

Re:Better idea

[Intropy]

There's also the issue of cultural norms. What people in one country might consider to be corrupt, people in another might think is fine behavior or so commonplace that despite being bad it's expected and so doesn't count.

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems rather short sighted to me.

What if you have someone who is absolutely brilliant at legislating, and does a great job of it? "Sorry, your 4 years are up, back to Kinko's you go, now it's time for some horridly corrupt and inept person to take office and undo all the good work you've done!"

How about, instead, we make it our goal to have a logical, educated, informed populace who evaluates the past performance of each candidate against his or her own goals, the requirements of the position they were in, and the capabilities of the person running against them, then choose the best person for the job? How about we require some minimal level of civic literacy before we allow people to vote?

Yeah, I know, that'd require work, and all the idiots spouting off about how shitty Obama or Bush are would have to actually know something about the government before they could take part in the election of representatives, which means that somebody somewhere will come up with a reason why the plan is racist, classist, sexist, or sexual-identity-ist, because how can you expect [poor|brown|gay|female|non-english-speaking] people to know something about the democracy before they can take part in it.

It's so much easier to just check the name with the little (R) or (D) next to it, because that's the way every member of your family has voted since your great grandpappy came back from the Great War, right?

Re:Better idea

[Americano]

twenty who are "perceved to be less corrupt"; that does not mean that they are less corruptible.

But in broad strokes, looking at that list you'll find that most of the countries at the top of your list are fairly liberal democracies/republics. I'd say that offers a pretty strong suggestion that liberal democracy and free market economies are relatively less corruptible than the alternatives.

Re:Better idea

[NeutronCowboy]

Let me put it this way: would you rather that candidates are bribed by corporations through donations, or by yourself through taxes?

Re:Better idea

[MrEricSir]

I don't care where it came from, it hasn't worked. Only a fool repeats a failure and expects a success.

Re:Better idea

[PancakeMan]

Also, can you please point out an example of a government that is less corruptible than our own?

How about our own before Citizens United?

Re:Better idea

[Sentrion]

I have the opposite idea. No term limits and no re-elections. Every politician stays in office for as long as he or she is doing the right thing. Those who believe he should be removed from office can cast a vote to remove him or her from office, but this vote can be rescinded and re-applied as often as desired, giving the official the chance to comply with the demands of his constituents. Once the number of recall votes exceeds 50% of the number of active registered voters under his jurisdiction then the politician is put on notice that he may be removed from office and replaced by any challenger that accumulates 50% of the number of eligible votes from the registered voters. There would be no planned election days. Every voter could back a candidate at any time and keep his vote behind that candidate for as long as he would choose, and could change his preference at any time. Undecided voters could choose neutrality for any office they had the right to vote for, but then they would have to accept the decision of the active voters who backed actual candidates. Voters would be required to renew their registration annually, but not all on the same date - but more like renewing the inspection sticker on an automobile. This would weed out citizens that were no longer actively engaged in the democratic process. In this sense voters would maintain and continuously update their registration more like maintaining a web based profile rather than casting ballots at the end of a campaign.

The problem with single terms is that once in office there is no incentive to follow the will of the people. Once in office a single term candidate could push his own radical agenda or the agenda of his future employer. There are already too many bureaucrats that take cushy jobs at the companies they were appointed to regulate after they leave office. The same is even true of judges that take on higher paying jobs as arbitrators working for private arbitration firms. These judges spend their years in office making decisions in favor of the businesses the judges hope to work for as arbitrators. Their decision record is more effective than any job interview alone could ever be.

Re:Better idea

[newcastlejon]

Lobbyist: Hey, you! Want to win a real lottery? All you have to do is sign here/vote/walk through that door...
Representative (best case): Hmm...
Representative (worst case): Ker-ching!

While I like the idea of sortition, I think it would only stop repeated bribery of one representative.

Re:Better idea

[jd]

I would agree. Yes, it would require work. It would also require a lot of money, since to make a good evaluation requires more than the facts on the candidates but also research skills and a good enough grounding in a wide enough range of topics to be able to interpret those facts. And that means overhauling the educational system in America. (I'm thinking an absolute minimum would be to triple the mandatory educational budget.) It would also require purging schools of quite a bit of corruption, or the money will simply end in the pockets of organized thugs and megachurches.

What you're describing, and what I've believed in for some time, is a system that is very close to the one proposed by the Chartist movement - except I believe theirs was unnecessarily elitist and exclusive - and the one proposed by Plato in his book The Republic, which does indeed cover the idea of educating people to the necessary standard. It should be possible to raise standards to be as inclusive as humanly possible, as per Plato, but then include only those who opt-in to those standards, as per the Chartists. Those who voluntarily exclude themselves can't reasonably expect to be included (and could reasonably argue that it imposes on their right to exclude themselves if they want to).

Re:Better idea

[Toonol]

I've mentioned this before, but I think one minor law could drastically reform our election process: Make it illegal to indicate party affiliation of a candidate on a ballot.

Re:Better idea

[dual eyes]

I like how Canada handles political donations. It is illegal for Corporations, Trade Unions and unincorporated associations to make political contributions. Individuals are limited to $1100 a year and anything over $20 cash has to be receipted. The government must do its own fundraising over a diverse population and cannot be bought by corporations or rich individuals. I don't think this system could ever be implemented in the USA though. The politicians already make too much money from the corporations to ever willingly give it up.

Re:Better idea

[jd]

The Normans (lit. The North Men, or Norse Men) were basically the same as the Danes who had ruled over most of England under Danelaw - which, ultimately, was not significantly different from Saxon law.

Neither Danelaw nor Saxon law (the Dooms) were significantly different from Romano-British law (which was more British than Roman and was derived from Insular Celtic law). The Insular Celts, unlike their European counterparts, were more absorbed by the Bronze Age people than vice versa. Genetically, their fingerprint is no more than 25%, with the Bronze Age peoples at 65% and everyone else (Romans, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Norse, Danes, etc) making up the pathetic 10% that's left. Insular Celts largely replaced the previous language but many of the traditions and practices from the prior peoples remained intact (and some survive intact to this day).

Thus, the modern government of Britain is a direct descendant of the Mesolithic governmental systems, without interruption and without substantial change. Hell, most of the county boundaries abolished in Thatcher's time were Mesolithic political boundaries - something well-attested by archaeology.

Re:Better idea

[tehcyder]

Even better - take all of the power to interfere with everyone's life that politicians have usurped over the years and no one will bother to bribe them. No power, no corruption. We don't need more laws - we need less government.

You, sir, are a libertarian and a retard. A sort of libertaritard, if you will. Obviously, the world will be a wonderful place once government is emasculated entirely and corporations can pursue their wonderfully enlightened goals of fucking everyone over to make as much money as possible. Truly, the free market is the magic solution to everything.

Re:Better idea

[Original Replica]

"political donations of any type are a form of corruption".

Donations should only be allowed to candidates that the donor is legally allowed to vote for. Corporations, unions, and lobbies could not give any money. Also multi-millionaires could not give outside of their state or district. All donations should be fed through a "Voter Contribution Department" that sends donations to the intended candidate, but anonimizes the donors, not only removing the names, but issuing the moneys daily to the campaign on a rolling one month average. Advertising "paid for by The Friends of CandidateX" should then be illegal and all contributors to "Friends of CandidateX" should be prosecuted for tampering with the election process. People may only place advertisements on land they own, and speak support from the mouth (and online identities) that they own.

Re:Better idea

[jwhitener]

We could probably kill several birds with one stone if we strengthened and extended libel and slander laws to political speech.

You want to buy and make a commercial to say something about a policy or candidate? You better make sure it is factually accurate and not misleading or do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go directly to jail.

Can I propose another branch too?

[characterZer0]

The Sanity Check Branch.

Composed of 251 adult citizens with college educations (5 from each state, 1 from DC) selected at random for 1 year terms. Each law after presidential signing or Congressional override must be read aloud and provided in writing to the branch. They vote on it in secret. If it does not get 60% of the votes, it dies.

Re:Can I propose another branch too?

[dreemernj]

College educations and insanity are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Re:Can I propose another branch too?

[Urban Garlic]

Distantly related to an idea I saw being batted around years ago, which I liked very much -- make the House of Representatives itself work this way. Serving your district in the House is like jury duty, you get a summons, you serve for a year, and then you're done.

It's fun to think about, but the problem is that if the members (of sanity-check or my wacky HoR) are known to be short-timers, their privileges will end up being suborned by the permanent staff, who will have the institutional memory needed to work the system. And then you're back to square one. See the British TV comedy "Yes, Minister" for a vivid illustration of the dynamic.

Re:Can I propose another branch too?

[MozeeToby]

I suspect that it would be physically impossible to read every vote aloud in a reasonable (50 hour work week) time frame. It certainly wouldn't be possible for individual people actually understand, let alone weigh in on and discuss, every aspect of ever law of the current system. Now, maybe that's part of what you're trying to address under the assumption that your secret voters would vote down anything that was so unwieldy and cumbersome.

Re:Can I propose another branch too?

[Maximum Prophet]

Yes, that sounds like the point.

We currently have a system in which the decision makers can't read every bill they vote on. Each has a staff of people who presumably can be trusted to steer the Congressperson the right way.

Re:Can I propose another branch too?

[Maximum Prophet]

Why don't laws, when tested, only need a majority of the Supremes to pass them? Shouldn't any decent law require unanimous approval of the supreme court to be good enough to apply to everyone?

E.g. Why should the common folk be required to follow a law that a *Supreme Court Justice* doesn't think should be.

Re:Can I propose another branch too?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I suspect that it would be physically impossible to read every vote aloud in a reasonable (50 hour work week) time frame.

If it can't be read aloud in 50 hours, it's almost certainly bad law.

If Congress is passing so many laws that they all can't be read aloud during the Congressional Term, then Congress is passing a lot of what are, almost certainly, bad laws.

One easy check for a bad law - the people who voted for/against it haven't read it.

Simplify it

[jasno]

How can a democracy function effectively when the government is more complex than the average voter can understand?

In order to make intelligent decisions, voters need to understand what they're controlling. If they can't do that, you've got to remove some functionality.

so MORE government?

[roman_mir]

More government to fix the problem of too much government?

Makes sense if one accepts the idea that too much debt can be fixed with more debt.

Too many wars can be fixed with a bigger war.

This is how you start, not with more government, with less government.

you can't make voters care

[a2wflc]

Unless you can find a way to make voters care, nothing else matters. I'm afraid the UI they want has 2 big buttons "R" and "D" for voting and discussion boards where only like-minded people can post.

Re:you can't make voters care

[0racle]

Further, the R/D view is part of the reason voters don't care. It creates an US vs. Them scenario for people, I vote for my team and people who vote for the other are wrong. No thought, no discussion of issues has to occur, just keep the adversarial appearance.

The two party system in the US has broken down to not being about issues, but about the two parties themselves.

Jesus Christ

[SlippyToad]

Adams was at one time a funny guy, but he's long past his sell date. His cartoons are uniformly boring and predictable.

And his ideas about anything outside of mocking office stupidity are simply breathtaking for their sheer wilful ignorance. I've read some of his other political blatherings. I filed them in the same bird cage where I keep David Brooks' meaningless self-aggrandizing bullshit, which is piled on top of the now thank-fucking-god-that-stupid-bastard-is-dead David Broder's similar excrescences.

God save us from over-wealthy fools who think that money equals intelligence.

Re:Jesus Christ

[diegocg]

Scott Adams has always been careful to note that his "political" ideas have no sense and that he doesn't know anything about the topics he talks about. He writes these articles just because he likes to write thought-provoking articles that make people discuss something different than the boring and predictable political bullshit that you find anywhere else. From TFA: "If you think my ideas for fixing the republic are ridiculous and impractical, you're probably right. If you have better ideas, this would be a good time to share them, because whatever you've been doing until now hasn't been working"

We already have a fourth branch of government

[roccomaglio]

The press is the fourth branch of government and it is doing a horrible job. People are busy and expect the press to research and appraise things fairly, instead we receive sensational stories or someones biased opinion. Half the time we get side tracked on discussing the wrong issues. The press as it is has failed and I hope that it is replaced with something that better informs the populace.

Re:We already have a fourth branch of government

[NeutronCowboy]

You know what the press does? It creates content that sells. If the public at large will only read which senator slept with which secretary, then those are the stories we will get.

The press fails us because we fail ourselves. For the same reason that in a democracy, we get the government we deserve, in a capitalist economy, we get the press we deserve.

Re:Better idea, not

[codex24]

Legally-enforced prohibition never solved anything. Look what it has done for alcohol, narcotics, and traitors. They've been reduced, but haven't gone away. If you want to eliminate something then you need to destroy its habitat, and the natural habitat of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex predator is the unchecked flow of money that drives the current political process. As Scott alludes, Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.publicampaign.org/) is the single most important political issue in this country for any party, persuasion, or constituency. Our current system is built on the premise that money is equivalent to "speech", and that since speech cannot be restricted (1st Amendment), neither can financial support of campaigns. This is no more true than the idea that a corporation is a "person". Unlike money, speech is effective for its quality, not its quantity.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:And nothing about rape in it?

[LoLobey]

You're an idiot. In no frame of reference does Scott ever allude to such a thing. I'm sure you're referring to the backlash from his Pegs and Holes article where various parties chose to misconstrue what he said in pursuit of they're own agenda. You're just another jerk trying to use an ad hominem attack instead of presenting a valid argument.

Re:Much Better idea

[Trilkin]

Poe's Law says no=(