Is alimony an outdated concept?
I think so, since today in 2018 it is entirely legally impossible for a spouse to make a married partner sacrifice anything.Say we are business partners. We share the business 50/50, profits and debts. You are a skilled accountant and I am a computer programmer. We go into business together developing some apps. App doesn’t do well, business fails, you’re out all your time and effort you spent doing the accounting for the business.Is it my fault you chose to spend your time on a failed business that you partially own?If the business had done well, or actually at any time, you could take your 50% share and sell it for a profit. I didn’t make you do anything.A married spouse can choose to remain in the marriage or not, have children or not, work or not, further their education or not, and there’s nothing the partner can do to stop them. That’s a good thing. Who wants to remain with someone they don’t like, doing something they despise, for reasons that don’t make any sense to them?I think alimony is a hold over from the patriarchal bad old days when women didn’t have the right to vote, own property, or work at any job they were qualified to do.The theory that alimony remedies the opportunity cost incurred when a married partner chooses to play a domestic role instead of a professional one, is flawed, IMHO. Why couldn’t a married partner of 10 years choose to acquire skills and learn a trade, or even, parlay the domestic role into a business such as foster parenting or day care?No, I think it perpetuates gender stereotypes and patriarchal pigeon holes.
Has federalism become an outdated concept?
Not in the least. It may be the only practical way to govern a country the size of the United States.That’s not to say that I think we’re doing the best we can with it at the moment. There are a number of things that are currently being done at the federal level that could be done more effectively at the state level, and there are certainly things where we could benefit from the “laboratories of democracy” approach and adopt at the federal level some things that have been found to work well at the state level.For instance, I think a certain set of minimum standards around voting should be established at the federal level, with states having the ability to expand upon them if they want. Things like “if you’re going to require voter ID, here’s a minimum set of IDs you have to accept,” and if a state wants to accept other types as well it’s up to them.
Has democracy become an outdated concept?
Democracy as a thing is outdated. Democracy as a process is alive and well. Almost every government and every political leader agrees that people should have some say in how their government works. What’s the alternative? Yes, a benevolent dictatorship might be the best form of government. But how do you choose the benevolent dictator and make sure that he, she, or it stays benevolent? There are many theories and many systems. Most of them agree that too much democracy is bad, but that too little democracy is also bad. Finding the right mix is a process—a difficult and unending one.
Is the electoral college outdated, since a votes can easily be counted with modern communication?
In 2000 and 2016 the EC gave us inferior Republicans for President,and both right-wing amateurs slowed down the economy and messed up foreign policy. No one knows what the world would have been like with Gore or Clinton, but it would have been better.
Is the concept of democracy absurd?
The gentlemen who have answered here have answered from the perspective of the Western world. where voters are not co-erced or are literate. Let me give India's perspective.Voters by and large here vote their caste, not cast their vote. Community leaders often decide which candidates should be elected. There is a good deal of intimidation and rigging. Separatist parties often attempt to disrupt the process. The average politician that we elect has, or turns out to have masses of wealth from unknown sources. A third of our politicians should be behind bars. That we function at all is a bloody miracle.Voters in the system need to be at least aware of the fact that they must vote according to the needs of the society, not for their own purposes. I suggest that democracy should be modified to allow any people of a certain capability and education to stand as candidates. After all, we train doctors and engineers before allowing them positions of responsibility. My minimum qualification for a candidate should be a graduate in Political science, history or economics, without a criminal case pending before nomination. After this, the process of democracy can go on. Do you take the opinion of ten people on the street before deciding which car to buy or which medicine to take for cold? You go to specialist for this.More controversially, I believe that the person who files an income tax return should be the one who is allowed to vote. Or at least, whose vote should count more than one who doesn't. Please note that it is not someone who pays income tax. Just one who files a return. It demonstrates a willingness to participate in the development of his country.
Why is the concept of representational democracy better or worse than a delegate/liquid democracy?
In the direct democracy model all voters vote directly on issues. In the representative democracy model voters first vote for and elect representatives who then vote on their behalf, whereas in Liquid Democracy Voters can either vote directly on issues, or they can delegate their voting power to delegates (i.e. representatives) who vote on their behalf. Delegation can be domain specific, which means that voters can delegate their voting power to different experts in different domains.A very important property of Liquid Democracy is transitivity.The distinctive factor of Liquid Democracy vs. Delegative Democracy is that of vote recommendation, instead of vote proxyin.Theoretically thus, Voters have the choice to either vote personally or delegate someone else. This is in stark contrast to the democracies in use today, where users are limited to either constantly vote for themselves, or vote for a representative once every few years. In these two models, voters are either overwhelmed with the kind of work that is required to participate, or they are completely underwhelmed and not included enough in the government’s decision making. Liquid Democracy gives voters the freedom to decide their level of involvement, while being able to change it at any time. This means that the decision making of a country is directly in the hands of the entire population. But this too needs time frame work - of voting as - it involves a problem - The Problem of making everyone a Leader - a Politician which in turn- is dangerous .
Is democracy outdated?
Is democracy outdated?One must assume you are talking of a benevolent dictatorship here. Or a Technocracy?You mention Democracy but you jump to Governance as the issue.Which in turn would point to Politics?How about this meme to put forward what might be part of the problem?Single policies supposed to fit everyone.A country being acted upon as a unit instead of regions which have a clearer distinct identity.Dualism between right and left and diametrical opposition in general.Focus on political differences instead of similitudes in order to reach consensus.Majoritarian ruling despite democracy supposed to account for minorities and individuals.Actions based on opinion and not necessarily on fact.Policies seeming to aim for the short term between elections.Antagonism (which sometimes equates to immobilism).Mudslinging between parties and supporters.The end result might be that no-one is happy with decisions and this approach does not seem to hold well when a country is doing badly.The actual debates could be solved faster with alternative models being tested according to Evidence-based politics as Finland seems to be doing at the moment.Also, as Daniel David points out below, a major step up would be for citizens to be able to hold Referendums as in Switzerland and for government to ask for consent through Popular consultations.Also I will further plug in the idea of Hired Representative Democracy which is a set of ideas for improving government thought up by Tom Gregory.
Are voice votes often meaningfully unanimous or bipartisan?
Personally I believe that voice votes are outdated and do not progress democracy.I also believe Judges at the Supreme Court level should be directly voted in by the people not appointed by the Government.Democracy is at a standstill everywhere in the World apart from Romania.I shook my head in disbelief that a Government could have such contempt for its people that it would allow State sponsored corruption. Well done to the people of Romania.We must demand more of our Governments. We the people have let them get away with mediocre unintelligent solutions to the problems of the World.The voice vote has to go. We are in a era that has technology which can progress Democracy.Every vote should be carried out electronically and the voter should have to record the justification for their vote.Wake up democracy and the People. Ask not what your Government can do for you but when is your Goverment going to act for you.