Should Democracies Bring Back Ostracism

[d123 4]

In ancient Athens, citizens could vote to ostracize politicians for ten years if they were seen as dangerous or overly powerful. Do you think introducing a similar system in today’s representative democracies — where, say, at the end of each term, the public could vote to suspend 10–20 politicians from holding office for the next decade — would make democracy stronger, or weaker?

What do you guys think?

[BIGUN 1,520]

32 minutes ago, d123 said:

What do you guys think?

I don't think it would work today. It would require a bill passed by those in power in both houses and the President - and power is not going to let go of said power. 

[jakee 1,640]

43 minutes ago, d123 said:

In ancient Athens, citizens could vote to ostracize politicians for ten years if they were seen as dangerous or overly powerful. Do you think introducing a similar system in today’s representative democracies — where, say, at the end of each term, the public could vote to suspend 10–20 politicians from holding office for the next decade — would make democracy stronger, or weaker?

What do you guys think?

To state the obvious, the USA (or almost any western democracy) is very big compared to the Athenian polis. Therefore, almost every politician is the direct representative of a small group of people from a small part of the country, which wasn’t the case in the very old days (among many other major differences). 
 

So how would modern ostracism work - sounds like a national vote, yeah? Would it be right to let a bunch of urban liberals across the country tell a county in Texas they can’t have their congressman anymore because he’s getting too popular? Or a bunch of Texas, Florida and Mississippi republicans tell a black district in LA they can’t have the candidate they want to vote for? 

[Phil1111 1,250]

"Key Aspects of Ostracism 

Purpose:

It served as a preemptive measure to remove potential threats to Athenian democracy and prevent the rise of overly powerful individuals who could undermine the constitutional order.

• The Vote:

  A secret vote was held where citizens would write the name of the person they wished to ostracize on a shard of pottery (ostrakon).
• Required Threshold:

  A significant number of votes was required for an ostracism to be valid, often a quorum of at least 6,000 votes.
• Duration of Exile:

  The ostracized individual was forced into a ten-year exile from Athens.
• Moderation:

  Despite the dramatic nature of the process, it was used with restraint, with only a small number of individuals being ostracized over two centuries."

   

  Today it could be abused too regularly IMO

   

   

[JoeWeber 3,011]

18 hours ago, jakee said:

To state the obvious, the USA (or almost any western democracy) is very big compared to the Athenian polis. Therefore, almost every politician is the direct representative of a small group of people from a small part of the country, which wasn’t the case in the very old days (among many other major differences). 
 

So how would modern ostracism work - sounds like a national vote, yeah? Would it be right to let a bunch of urban liberals across the country tell a county in Texas they can’t have their congressman anymore because he’s getting too popular? Or a bunch of Texas, Florida and Mississippi republicans tell a black district in LA they can’t have the candidate they want to vote for? 

He wasn't arguing the practicality, just tossing out the idea. But if we are being practical, I'd agree that anytime anyone is barred from office we'd be better off.

[jakee 1,640]

48 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But if we are being practical, I'd agree that anytime anyone is barred from office we'd be better off.

Anyone? How does that help, in practice? I mean, you haven’t ostracised the office itself, have you? So the office will still be filled. By a politician. Who is equally deserving of being ostracised. Because they’re a politician in office.

Yay, I guess?

[JoeWeber 3,011]

Just now, jakee said:

Anyone? How does that help, in practice? I mean, you haven’t ostracised the office itself, have you? So the office will still be filled. By a politician. Who is equally deserving of being ostracised. Because they’re a politician in office.

Yay, I guess?

Never mind, I should know better.