What is a properly functioning democracy?

In reality is voting is a gamble by way of lottery, not an asset, and as the lottery pays off so does your vote. Sometimes bust, sometimes a two dollar winner, sometimes ten etc...

A more direct outcome could be had if we turn elected officials into contracted employees with specific duties matched to qualification and have those interested apply for the positions being selected by an algorithm using those parameters. They are then technical functionaries instead of abstract administrators of public or private visions or expectations

 

Would you consider it more properly equitable if you created a business putting up 90% of the required initial investment and I put up the remaining 10%, and then we were to split the profits 50% each?

 

Most investments present some amount of risk, so investing your vote for or against a political candidate is a gamble. Perhaps the candidate you voted for does not keep his/her word. While businesses can be sued for making false claims, politicians can only be removed from office sometimes and even that may not be enough to recoup any losses endured.

Supposedly that is what our Constitution intended by enumerating the powers of our Federal government, but we've found that can be worked around by reinterpretation.

 

So not even a calculated risk but a significant gamble.
Good governance is a personal investment or agreement with good cause and effort and reward are identical. Investment with proxy funds is the very cause of a lack of accountability.

With the vote it is worked around by chance, not coherent vision.

 

Perhaps it should have been made clear in the OP as to what form of government the question of a "properly functioning" democracy is to be applied?

 

If the consent of the people is to be applied there are other ways than voting for candidates to achieve equal representation under the law. Perhaps we could constitutionally amend to account for two hundred plus years of cultural development and obvious demonstrations of function or dis-function as the case may be.

 

When my friends need help they ask me, if I need help I ask them. Real equity is equal reward to effort. If that is the case then the idea that you pay little and get much in return is a quick way to impoverishment. You don't notice this decline because profit is wrested from the environment and the sweat of others. Profit is a falsification of bills in order that a few may accumulate wealth at the expense of many.

 

This really is the crux of the problem; the ones we empower to be in control of the destiny of the federation, are themselves often shockingly incompetent, uneducated, and ignorant. They get elected based on "values" and then legislate based on party politics and values, turning congress into a high school debate team without a moderator.

 

Did you mean to write equal application OF the law? If not, what do you mean by equal 'representation' under the law?

Our (belonging to the U.S.A.) Constitution can be amended at any time, and I would strongly support repealing the 16th and 17th amendments.

 

Three people, call them A, B, and C, are self employed creating the same product in competition with one another and have no additional employees to help or pay.
Their respective daily productivity is A=5, B=10, and C=20. If their material costs were equal and amounted to $0.50 per item produced, and A priced his product at $1.00 he would making $2.50 per day selling his product. If B and C priced their product the same as A, B would be making $5.00 per day (twice that of A), and C would be making $10.00 per day (four times that of A). Assuming, for this example, $2.50 a day was livable, both B and C could save or spend much more than A, or B could save $2.50 daily becoming wealthier than A, while C could save $7.50 each day making him much wealthier than both A and B. Suppose the product demand is high and they each decide to hire an employee. What should each of them pay their employees?

 

Where did the materials come from? Produced in a chemical factory or a smelter or maybe go natural with some rare hardwood? I bet from another location that uses a scale less than the one a.b. or c. uses. Why are a, b, or c in a price competition when their investment is their craftsmanship?
Investing energy in the things you care about is honest currency and sharing what you have makes for superior economy. Look at the food wasted in the for profit paradises. Workers are middle men and it appears to them they are moving up but it is a shell game as you notice the giants consuming the family store.

 

One man one vote.

 

Assume there is but a single source for the materials they each use, and as I stated the raw materials from which their products are being created are being purchased at the same price by each of them with the only difference between A, B, and C being their productivity, A being less efficient than B, who in turn is less efficient than C, or perhaps C just happens to be working more hours than B and B working more hours than A. Assume also that their product quality is equal. So there is no price competition, the only difference between A, B, and C is the income they are acquiring.

Is it unfair for C to be acquiring more income than B and A together, and do you feel that C should owe something more to society and/or the government because of that?

 

Women should not have a vote also?
We currently allow one man to cast one vote, and one woman also for that matter, but all we are allowed to vote on is who we are will allow to represent us in our government on a number of issues which once in office may not represent the wishes of but a small number of those who voted for them. In reality we are giving those we elect to political office the power to make decisions for us, without need of our consent, and many of them become quite offensive when confronted by their constituents who complain. This is a good example of how large central governed democracies comprised of a large number of societies become ruled by very small number of people, eventually leading them to fail.

 

Excuse lazy use of noun, one voting aged individual one vote.

Voting for candidates or people to make decisions for us is a good way to feel betrayed as in not getting your moneys worth, as we can see from congressional approval ratings. I see no reason to have elected officials whatsoever to run the country.

Complicating the issue of governance in a land of liberty and justice for all is the profit motive ideology, competition being at odds with genuine open cooperation, competition assuring the perception of the need for secrecy or the need to carry weapons. Democracy and capitalism are conflagrated here and the profit motive plays to our basest impulses and is at odds with the community lesson of good will.

 

To answer that question meaningfully we need to know what surpluses are for. I can only eat so much food.

 

No problem.

Assuming you've invested some money to begin with.

I don't see cooperation and competition being at odds with each other. People have always invested both their time and their money motivated by a return of profit since the time invested cannot be recouped. Profit provides the means by which production can be increased while allowing the price of the product to be decreased while maintaining or even growing the profits, all while benefiting the poorer consumers with the price reduction.
Many things which were unaffordable except to the rich have been made available to most members of society today. It took a while before my family could afford a TV, and now most families have more than one. The same is true of many if not all products, which initially come with a high price gradually reducing to become affordable to many if not most of society.

 

No you don't. All the necessary information is there, no mention of surpluses, and in fact the combined productivity of A, B, and C may not be adequate in filling the demand, of the unidentified product no matter what it may be. Why would you wish to complicate a simple question in order to produce an answer?

 

I intended to contribute to this thread, but according to the supreme court, money is speech, and so when I checked my wallet, I found I didn't have any right to speak this morning. Sorry.

 

Actually I do. You asked me a question of fairness, about what is equitable. I don't think profit is equitable and is a fictional accounting that distorts real value. What is the purpose of surplus because surplus here means deficiency there. Profit is surplus, what is left over after everyone has had their fill.

Just today the world bank downgraded growth estimates because growth is driven today by the emerging nations and they are suffering a drag from the industrialized countries stagnation.