I was actually in the middle of editing my post to address a few flaws in your government when you posted, so I will just use this reply to post it instead of an edit.
So, my current idea is based off of the U.S. government for the most part, but that's the perspective from which I entered the thought process. It's a little vague, but I'm a little vague. The government's main premise would be to disallow campaigning, to a certain extent. Neutral deciders would be found, though they would be eliminated in the case of bias, by whom I have no idea. The candidates would pay an entrance fee of maybe 50-75 dollars, and would be eliminated by personality flaws, IQ, or anything really. Then, for maybe the last ten candidates, people would be given required reading (Essays from the deciders) and then allowed to vote. If you didn't do the reading, you wouldn't be allowed to vote. The votes would be tallied, and the best candidate would be elected. Impeachment would be completely fine, to be done at any time. The judicial branch would remain untouched; I'm fine with all that. The military would have a similarly elected officer, and nobody would be able to skip in any way serving at the very lowest rank to begin. I think I would want there to be some sort of "Council of Morality" that could overturn any decisions, but not make any of their own.
While you do have a good idea, you have a couple major flaws that'll prevent it from working (I bolded them).
The first flaw is the idea of natural deciders. It's impossible to get someone completely unbiased (which I saw that you recognize). Look at the US's current court system. While it does work, it is in no way perfect. Watch the movie
12 Angry Men to get a perfect idea of what I mean.
Second flaw is my biggest issue with your plan. It breaks the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. We'd repeat that section of history all over again. If we still went ahead with that situation, we'd eventually have leaders who would "improve" (read: shrink) the voting pool to get "better" candidates elected. As time goes on, fewer and fewer people have a say in government, meaning less people have more power. Eventually, an oligarchy will form and we'll eventually end up as a dictatorship, putting us right back at the start. No matter how frustrated you are with dumb people, you cannot eliminate them from the voting process.
Finally, the last flaw I see is the idea of a Council of Morality. Morality is technically relative, so it's flawed from the start. Minus that fact, the idea of having a council with that much power is terrifying to me. Noone is perfect and everyone can be corrupted, so all it would take is a few people with lots of influence to control the decision making process.
Other than those three things, I think it's a pretty good system and I completely agree on the idea that military officers should have to serve before they can lead.
You bring up good points.
However, that isn't very definite, and the problem with the religious part is that it's extremely hard to convince an entire country to be one religion, not to mention pretty damn cruel. Also, remember that there are radicals for every religion, no matter how peaceful.
I personally shouldn't have to much of a say in this kind of matter, as I am not religious at all. I don't believe in anything, I just go on the assumption that everything proven by science is true, though sometimes I let go of that for a while as well.
Fear isn't a good motivator, really. It is for nimrods, but they're them. The thing about using fear is that it isn't saying that things that you do are morally wrong, it's saying that it's fine if you get away with it, just that if you get caught, you get punished.
Also, normal people often have completely separate views, even in the same country. The US Civil War is a prime example; the South thought that slavery was completely fine, and the North didn't. There were also other points of contention, but that was the highlight. Even today, there is resentment and distrust.
Idiocy is passed down and often magnified. Things that were once valid are no longer.
However, still, good points, good argument.
Not to invalidate your last post as there are some well thought out points in there, but I think you slightly misunderstood the point of my post. It wasn't the proposal of a new system, I was simply stating the requirements of a "perfect" system and then presenting why it's unreachable. I mentioned at the beginning of the post that it was purely speculative, perhaps I should have used the word hypothetical. I am assuming you are comparing what I'm saying to the current state of the US. The US government, where it is right now, would have a hard time reaching a state of complete control, though it's not entirely out of the question. Sensationalism can enable us to get there. Look at the bronies. Shortly after the show gained it's massive following, many bronies began to accept a code of "love and tolerance", almost as if it were a religion. While you don't see it much now that the show is nearing the end of it's second season, the amount of people that changed their lifestyle (albeit only for a few weeks) is astonishing. Something like that could happen on a much larger scale. And something like that doesn't have to last for a long time, just long enough to get laws in place that will get that system started.
I was originally going to go over the topics in your post one by one, but I'm having a hard time motivating myself to grab evidence for each example. I'll simply tell you basic claims, then you can ask me for specific evidence if you'd like.
It's not hard to convince an entire country to be one "religion".
Religion - a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
North Korea is a prime example. While technically Atheist, they worshiped Kim Jong Il. Science is becoming America's religion, something you are proving.
Pertaining to my last point, it's not "cruel" for a nation to follow one religion. It's like the saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Same concept applies here. The cruel thing is the brainwashing and executions it takes to get to that point, but the history books are written by the victors. We still think of it as cruel because many didn't choose to follow it, but do they really need a choice? Individual freedom is a very American concept, many people think that America is stupid for allowing it.
Addressing radicals, how often do you see radicals attack their own? Never (unless they're crazy). Radicals would not be an issue for perfect system because everyone would be brainwashed the exact same way. The reasons radicals exists is because there is speculation. Get rid of speculation and opinions won't differ.
Fear isn't a good motivator, really. It is for nimrods, but they're them. The thing about using fear is that it isn't saying that things that you do are morally wrong, it's saying that it's fine if you get away with it, just that if you get caught, you get punished.
Fear is one of the greatest motivators, next to love and anger. Have you ever heard the quote,
"It's better to be feared than loved?" There is a lot of truth in that. Love is probably the most secure form of motivation because the person wants to do it (I've seen people travel thousands of miles to help those that they love), but it is sometimes overpowered by anger or fear. Anger is great for fast action (look at any of the recent protests in the past few months, most were fueled by anger), but anger generally doesn't last very long. Fear is relativity easy to achieve and can have a long-lasting effect. If there were reports of someone killing anyone who opened a refrigerator door with their left hand, would you only use your right hand until that person was caught and your fear was removed? I would because I fear for my life.
As far as the normal people comment, the reason people have different views is either because there is room for speculation or they're crazy. Things pertaining to morality (like slavery) have room for speculation. Nobody will debate you on the need to breathe unless they are crazy. In a "perfect" system, you would remove all speculation, and thereby, almost all arguments will cease to exist. Those that argue are deemed "crazy" and are executed.
If you'd like me to turn my previous post into a legitimate system with laws and regulation, as well as a history to better help you understand, I'd be willing to write it all down, though I'd rather not.
