What are the advantages of demarchy over democracy? Why are we better off with demarchy instead of democracy? What sort of representation would we have under demarchy instead of democracy? Would political parties still exist? Where along the political spectrum would our demarchy be compared now to where we are today under democracy? Would lobbying be permitted? How much influence would the wealthy have? Could big corporations still “buy” the sort of legislation that they want? A more honest government than what we have now? What about electing the President? The Senate? State governments? Local governments? Just what would happen to us?
A demarchy operates via a lottery open to all qualified citizens. Most likely there would be a minimum age requirement, an educational requirement, most likely graduation from high school, no criminal record, etc. Eligibility requirements would be relatively simple and open to most US citizens at no cost. The term of service would likely be two years as a representative just as it is now on both the state and the federal level. At least until any problems are worked out, we would likely still retain the present day electoral system for the Senate and the President, the similar positions on the state level. City councils would also be an ideal place to make the first steps towards establishment of demarchy. This was actually rather close to how the Greeks did there in Athens back a couple of thousand years ago. Demarchy in this sense is the “true democracy” from which has grown the democratic political systems in use over centuries. The Romans, for those interested, never created a democratic society. They had an elected republic, composed of the Senate (the preserve of Roman aristocrats) who the people could vote for. They did have competitive elections, so the people did have some “say” in things. Still Imperial Rome was a society of great wealth for a few, and poverty for the many.
How would a demarchy operate? As becoming a representative would be open to most citizens, we can assume that the makeup of the representatives would be evenly divided between the sexes, the races, and sexual preference. The list of occupations would cover the complete spectrum of work. As a wealthy person would have no advantage over a non-wealthy person, the entire group would represent a true cross section of society. Roughly, we could expect a couple of professionals, a teacher, a few businessmen, with the rest being ordinary working people. Given the percentages, we could also expect a few unemployed people too. In any case, each of the occupations would be represented according to its percentage of the population, something far different from what we have today. And also far more representative too assuming that we don’t allow any bias to slip into the lottery system. A demarchy in this sense is the most “democratic” form of government that can be created. It is even more “democratic” than parliamentary types of government that have proportional representation as some European governments are composed with multiple political parties representing various popular interests. For obtaining a true cross section of the population, demarchy is superior to all other forms of government. It also prevents political control by the wealthy, the corporations, and all “special interest” groups of the sort we now have. In a demarchy, these will have little power to influence legislation since legislators only serve one two year term as popular representatives. I will grant that there will be an attempt by these groups to “make offers hard to refuse” to the representatives, but this will likely be much more difficult in a political system where representative only serve one two year term before returning to their previous civilian lives. Any obvious sort of “bribery” would be relatively easy to detect, and a former representative who suddenly had a much higher standard of living than previously would be subject to serious, close investigation as a possible criminal.
Demarchy would be the death of political parties as we know them today. We would still of course have people whose views were right, left, middle of the road, libertarian, and so forth. But the powerful economic interests that can now obtain legislation written in their favor would be out of luck. And if we have a true cross section of the general public, we will also have far fewer members of the relatively wealthy occupations holding political office. The current pay for our political representatives is also much higher than the median income of the American people. Currently members of the House and Senate are paid $174,000 a year (plus very good benefits) while the average American worker today earns only a fraction of that at about $52,000 per family. This would imply that a demarchy would likely be much less willing to support the sort of legislation that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. This is incidentally one reason why the “Founding Fathers” did not support any sort of a “democratic” political system. They greatly desired a political system (stated in their writings) that “protected wealth and property against the mob” (the mob being those who weren’t wealthy or owned income producing property). So in this aspect a demarchy is in opposition to what they wanted. And we can expect that opposition to a demarchy would come from the upper class types. Unfortunately doctrinaire Libertarianism is likely to be opposed to a demarchy because of the idea that the “common people” would not “appreciate” the advantages of a free enterprise, free trade economy and would be more likely to support some sort of a “welfare state” similar to that found in the northern European countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark. Countries with high taxes and a far higher level of social benefits. However this might not hold true as many people would see the advantages of much lower regulation, greater personal freedom, just as long as there was still a “social safety net” for those who were unable to support themselves for whatever reason befell them. Ayn Rand might be popular with some Libertarians, but her philosophy also tends to be quite “Social Darwinist” and popular only with a minority of the people. I myself tend to believe in more personal freedom, less government regulation, and a true free market. Mainly because these things improve people’s lives and are of great social benefit. Also the automated financial transaction tax is an excellent replacement for the income tax and the payroll tax as that it taxes the most effectively unproductive uses of money, not goods and services that can offered on the free market. Hedge funds and the various manipulations of money that were carried out by Wall Street and the big banks did not do anything to benefit society as a whole. The only thing “produced” was an economic depression that will likely last out the rest of this decade! Certainly nothing good came out of all of these CDO’s and everything else that was in effect just massive “FRAUD”!