Kill those who become corrupt.
Accountability to the electorate is something that is lacking at any time other than during elections. I kind of like serge's idea of making the candidates sign a contract with the electorate, as well as work the wording into their oath of office.
Additionally, abolishing political parties and having individuals run on the merit of their ideas would help.
I suppose that's why the term "a more perfect union" is used (at least in the US). The founder realized perfection would never be achieved.
Additionally, abolishing political parties and having individuals run on the merit of their ideas would help.
I suppose that's why the term "a more perfect union" is used (at least in the US). The founder realized perfection would never be achieved.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
We can improve it by reinstating tests for voter eligibility. Uninformed or stupid voters are the bane of a democracy.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-05-28 17:48:56)
You're forgetting health care. The government also serves to entertain its citizens with the regular scandal, as Canada's proving yet once again. Whether the people care about education is another matter--the point is, this government is such a clown show that even 1950s Vietnam looks good. I mean, democracy's about the peoples' rights, not their roflz! But back on track; direct democracy is the only real solution, ergo we should adopt a system of online voting, with referendums for every bill. Those who want to vote should fill out a questionnaire assuring that they know what they're talking about. I'd head it, if the government were to hire me for it.pierro wrote:
-The ends of a government are to improve the lives of the citizens...with that in mind I would say that education and access to information should be emphasized so the masses would vote in their self interest...the actual mechanics of how they vote or what it counts for are secondary concerns compared to the above.
I like pie.
Representative democracy in theory (and we are talking application of theory after all) is only a more efficient form of democracy. Things that apply in democracy ideally apply in a republic.
One of the core foundations of democracy is that every individual is equal. Every vote counts the same because each person has an equal say. However in our current system $$$ gives people a few extra mouths, especially (and obviously) when it comes to being elected. Even though theory dictates your next door neighbor should have an equal shot at winning the white house as Donald Trump, we all know that isn't even close to being the case. Limiting the effect of donations on the outcome elections should be priority #1, or no matter what we do every republic will continue to slide down a slippery slope to class rule. With no changes to the system, coming intentionally or not, I can see an America exactly like France in the 1780s. I don't blame the economic system, I blame the political system.
A good start would be getting rid of political advertisements. An even better start would be debates in a national poker-style tournament, with the winners being judged by voters picked similarly to a jury. Giving the common man a fighting chance to at the very least express his ideas at a national level might mix things up a little bit, not just the microchange bullshit certain political candidates are currently feeding us.
Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test. The test could even be favored to the opposite political party from the one you registered with, which leads me to my next point....
Political parties are the bane of democracy. Doing anything to disband them would be for the good of the country. Wise people have said it before, and I will say it again. They use the money and influence of the upper class to stand on the flock mentality of the lower class in order to fight the other upper class using their money and influence standing on the flock mentality of the lower class for power. The exploitation, though masterful and admirable, only works towards the good of the country when the country's interests align with party interests.
Parties will never be abolished because people who think alike will always band together, but the depth of the infiltration currently is absurd. They have reserved slots on the ballots for God's sake! Seriously, what on earth did the individual candidate do to deserve that? Just climbed on board? They're giving candidates a ridiculously unfair and arguably undeserved advantage. Sure they won party nominations, but parties are supposed to be working to get a single candidate to present a unified front (well, that's how Republicans work anyways ) so that the party can control them like a fucking puppet. That's exactly how we even talk about it, "The Republicans have regained control of the House" or "We have a split Congress now". How the hell can you split a congress of over 500 individuals? You can't when representatives vote like rational people, only when congressmen are just pawns that come in two different colors are controlled by external forces, external forces that were not asked to vote for the people by the people. It's ridiculous, and the complacency of the American people not only confirms it but makes the need for reform that much more obvious.
I seem to have made this more about America and less about global republics than I intended, mostly because I have grown up with this system and know little of foreign domestic politics. What I do know is I would be proud to take part in a second international political experiment here in America, similar to the one that took place in the days of our infancy, leading the way with what I hope remains of our national pride and levelheadedness to a new chapter in the quest for a more perfect union.
tl;dr
separate political system from economic system, give information based tests at the polls, kill political parties
One of the core foundations of democracy is that every individual is equal. Every vote counts the same because each person has an equal say. However in our current system $$$ gives people a few extra mouths, especially (and obviously) when it comes to being elected. Even though theory dictates your next door neighbor should have an equal shot at winning the white house as Donald Trump, we all know that isn't even close to being the case. Limiting the effect of donations on the outcome elections should be priority #1, or no matter what we do every republic will continue to slide down a slippery slope to class rule. With no changes to the system, coming intentionally or not, I can see an America exactly like France in the 1780s. I don't blame the economic system, I blame the political system.
A good start would be getting rid of political advertisements. An even better start would be debates in a national poker-style tournament, with the winners being judged by voters picked similarly to a jury. Giving the common man a fighting chance to at the very least express his ideas at a national level might mix things up a little bit, not just the microchange bullshit certain political candidates are currently feeding us.
Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test. The test could even be favored to the opposite political party from the one you registered with, which leads me to my next point....
Political parties are the bane of democracy. Doing anything to disband them would be for the good of the country. Wise people have said it before, and I will say it again. They use the money and influence of the upper class to stand on the flock mentality of the lower class in order to fight the other upper class using their money and influence standing on the flock mentality of the lower class for power. The exploitation, though masterful and admirable, only works towards the good of the country when the country's interests align with party interests.
Parties will never be abolished because people who think alike will always band together, but the depth of the infiltration currently is absurd. They have reserved slots on the ballots for God's sake! Seriously, what on earth did the individual candidate do to deserve that? Just climbed on board? They're giving candidates a ridiculously unfair and arguably undeserved advantage. Sure they won party nominations, but parties are supposed to be working to get a single candidate to present a unified front (well, that's how Republicans work anyways ) so that the party can control them like a fucking puppet. That's exactly how we even talk about it, "The Republicans have regained control of the House" or "We have a split Congress now". How the hell can you split a congress of over 500 individuals? You can't when representatives vote like rational people, only when congressmen are just pawns that come in two different colors are controlled by external forces, external forces that were not asked to vote for the people by the people. It's ridiculous, and the complacency of the American people not only confirms it but makes the need for reform that much more obvious.
I seem to have made this more about America and less about global republics than I intended, mostly because I have grown up with this system and know little of foreign domestic politics. What I do know is I would be proud to take part in a second international political experiment here in America, similar to the one that took place in the days of our infancy, leading the way with what I hope remains of our national pride and levelheadedness to a new chapter in the quest for a more perfect union.
tl;dr
separate political system from economic system, give information based tests at the polls, kill political parties
1) Democracy is about everyone having an equal say, someone can just as easily say you're not allowed to vote because you're stupid as you can say they're not allowed to vote because they're stupid? Who has the power to determine who is right Stalin?nukchebi0 wrote:
We can improve it by reinstating tests for voter eligibility. Uninformed or stupid voters are the bane of a democracy.
2) You can't test for stupidity.
Why can't it be taken further, why can't the people do everything themselves based on the majority? It isn't feasible to have everyone vote on everything, that's why we have representation. If we're letting them vote on anything at all, we might as well let them vote on everything and make sure they're doing their jobs the way they should be done.PureFodder wrote:
Here's an interesting idea. From what I can figure out it's an idea to allow the the masses of the population to have the right to create new laws, providing (in the American case) that they are constitutional. This means that if the masses want a new law, they don't need to care if the government wants it or not it just has to be constitutional and wanted by the masses.
If it keeps breaking don't keep temporarily patching it, fix the damn thing.
I smell a fourth branch. Brings a whole new meaning to checks and balances.ATG wrote:
Kill those who become corrupt.
Stupidity was implied with the uniformed voters. It might have been a stretch.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) Democracy is about everyone having an equal say, someone can just as easily say you're not allowed to vote because you're stupid as you can say they're not allowed to vote because they're stupid? Who has the power to determine who is right Stalin?nukchebi0 wrote:
We can improve it by reinstating tests for voter eligibility. Uninformed or stupid voters are the bane of a democracy.
2) You can't test for stupidity.
You still agree with the point about testing for being uniformed, no?
Being uninformed can be miles from being stupid.nukchebi0 wrote:
Stupidity was implied with the uniformed voters. It might have been a stretch.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) Democracy is about everyone having an equal say, someone can just as easily say you're not allowed to vote because you're stupid as you can say they're not allowed to vote because they're stupid? Who has the power to determine who is right Stalin?nukchebi0 wrote:
We can improve it by reinstating tests for voter eligibility. Uninformed or stupid voters are the bane of a democracy.
2) You can't test for stupidity.
You still agree with the point about testing for being uniformed, no?
There is still a general correlation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being uninformed can be miles from being stupid.nukchebi0 wrote:
Stupidity was implied with the uniformed voters. It might have been a stretch.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) Democracy is about everyone having an equal say, someone can just as easily say you're not allowed to vote because you're stupid as you can say they're not allowed to vote because they're stupid? Who has the power to determine who is right Stalin?
2) You can't test for stupidity.
You still agree with the point about testing for being uniformed, no?
Lemme take a stab...CameronPoe wrote:
It has struck me that representative democracy, the 'best' form of government hitherto developed, has many flaws. Groups of individual and unique human beings are asked to hand decisions that apply to the masses as a whole to their desired representative. To practice true democracy would be anarchic and mired in infinitely wasteful bureacracy. However, an elected representative of any individual person can make extremely important decisions on two distinct and separate issues, one where you support their decision and one where you vehemently oppose it. The representative is no longer 'representative' as it were. What is the next step in the political evolution of democracy? Can we rectify this somehow? Should there at least be some greater level of reversion to the public (on particular policy areas perhaps)? Discuss.
The answer you seek involves the dissolution of Israel and end American neocon fascism everywhere with side trips to china...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
...huh? Okay, someone is back on the soapbox.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Lemme take a stab...CameronPoe wrote:
It has struck me that representative democracy, the 'best' form of government hitherto developed, has many flaws. Groups of individual and unique human beings are asked to hand decisions that apply to the masses as a whole to their desired representative. To practice true democracy would be anarchic and mired in infinitely wasteful bureacracy. However, an elected representative of any individual person can make extremely important decisions on two distinct and separate issues, one where you support their decision and one where you vehemently oppose it. The representative is no longer 'representative' as it were. What is the next step in the political evolution of democracy? Can we rectify this somehow? Should there at least be some greater level of reversion to the public (on particular policy areas perhaps)? Discuss.
The answer you seek involves the dissolution of Israel and end American neocon fascism everywhere with side trips to china...
I beg to differ.nukchebi0 wrote:
There is still a general correlation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being uninformed can be miles from being stupid.nukchebi0 wrote:
Stupidity was implied with the uniformed voters. It might have been a stretch.
You still agree with the point about testing for being uniformed, no?
You don't need to beg.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I beg to differ.nukchebi0 wrote:
There is still a general correlation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being uninformed can be miles from being stupid.
Just explain why you don't agree with the statement.
You threw out a statement with no factual backing, using only logical deduction. I can do that too.nukchebi0 wrote:
You don't need to beg.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I beg to differ.nukchebi0 wrote:
There is still a general correlation.
Just explain why you don't agree with the statement.
You claim as education increases the percent of the populace that is informed increases. However, as education increases there is a bell curve from one political party to the other, from liberal at 0% socioeconomic status to republican at 100% socioeconomic status. This means at either end of the spectrum there are hardcore party members that don't need to stay informed about all the candidates at all, they just pay attention to their panhandling or sunbathing on their yacht until it's time to vote straight down one side of the ballot. Only those with moderate socioeconomic status, and therefore moderate education, will think for themselves best.
I don't agree with that logical deduction either, I'm just disproving yours.
As a Floridian I demand that you include the Dems when talking about candidates with unfair advantages. The whole idea behind the Superdelegate was to ensure that the parties elite (they call them loyalist) retained control. Selected not elected.. right?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They're giving candidates a ridiculously unfair and arguably undeserved advantage. Sure they won party nominations, but parties are supposed to be working to get a single candidate to present a unified front (well, that's how Republicans work anyways ) so that the party can control them like a fucking puppet.
Excellent post btw.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How about this; once elected, each representative is forced to declare which way they will vote in any parliment/senate etc. vote beforehand. If the enough of the populace of their voting area disagrees they can force a vote on whether to over-rule them and change their representatives vote. This way most of the issues are sorted out by the representative, but if something important or unexpected comes up or the representative starts doing things their constituents disagree strongly with, the populace can exhert their influence directly.
You'd just need to work out the right balance as to how many people would be required to force a public vote on the issue. Too few and it'd involve huge amounts of administration to sort out lots of votes, too high and it'd be too hard to encourage the populace to trigger the vote and the situation would end up the same as it is now.
You'd just need to work out the right balance as to how many people would be required to force a public vote on the issue. Too few and it'd involve huge amounts of administration to sort out lots of votes, too high and it'd be too hard to encourage the populace to trigger the vote and the situation would end up the same as it is now.
So you mean some sort of polling? I'm pretty wary of that stuff, it can be manipulated so easily. In theory though, it sounds pretty good.PureFodder wrote:
How about this; once elected, each representative is forced to declare which way they will vote in any parliment/senate etc. vote beforehand. If the enough of the populace of their voting area disagrees they can force a vote on whether to over-rule them and change their representatives vote. This way most of the issues are sorted out by the representative, but if something important or unexpected comes up or the representative starts doing things their constituents disagree strongly with, the populace can exhert their influence directly.
You'd just need to work out the right balance as to how many people would be required to force a public vote on the issue. Too few and it'd involve huge amounts of administration to sort out lots of votes, too high and it'd be too hard to encourage the populace to trigger the vote and the situation would end up the same as it is now.
Actually I was just poking fun at how completely self-destructive the Dems can tend to be, it's like they're giving the Republicans an unfair advantage.Kmarion wrote:
As a Floridian I demand that you include the Dems when talking about candidates with unfair advantages. The whole idea behind the Superdelegate was to ensure that the parties elite (they call them loyalist) retained control. Selected not elected.. right?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They're giving candidates a ridiculously unfair and arguably undeserved advantage. Sure they won party nominations, but parties are supposed to be working to get a single candidate to present a unified front (well, that's how Republicans work anyways ) so that the party can control them like a fucking puppet.
Superdelegates are really quite the epic failure of an idea though...whoever comes up with that needs to be given some sort of award and then removed from the gene pool.
Stay tuned on Saturday:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Superdelegates are really quite the epic failure of an idea though...whoever comes up with that needs to be given some sort of award and then removed from the gene pool.
Yay for little known panels making crucial decisions! ..lol.The little-known panel meets Saturday to determine, for now at least, the fates of the Michigan and Florida delegations -- and, by extension, the votes of nearly 600,000 Michiganians and 1.75 million Floridians who participated in Democratic primaries in January.
My question is how can you have an election and then change the rules after? You said self-destructive.. ya, I'd have to agree on that one.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
But why should we use facts when we can argue entirely from our own logic?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You threw out a statement with no factual backing, using only logical deduction. I can do that too.nukchebi0 wrote:
You don't need to beg.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I beg to differ.
Just explain why you don't agree with the statement.
You claim as education increases the percent of the populace that is informed increases. However, as education increases there is a bell curve from one political party to the other, from liberal at 0% socioeconomic status to republican at 100% socioeconomic status. This means at either end of the spectrum there are hardcore party members that don't need to stay informed about all the candidates at all, they just pay attention to their panhandling or sunbathing on their yacht until it's time to vote straight down one side of the ballot. Only those with moderate socioeconomic status, and therefore moderate education, will think for themselves best.
I don't agree with that logical deduction either, I'm just disproving yours.
...I see the point you are trying to make. I just have one question: Do you not think there is at least a slight inverse correlation between intelligence/socioeconomic standing and number of misinformed voters.?
Because you're making claims with false logic. Come up with something iron-clad or get something to back it up.nukchebi0 wrote:
But why should we use facts when we can argue entirely from our own logic?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You threw out a statement with no factual backing, using only logical deduction. I can do that too.nukchebi0 wrote:
You don't need to beg.
Just explain why you don't agree with the statement.
You claim as education increases the percent of the populace that is informed increases. However, as education increases there is a bell curve from one political party to the other, from liberal at 0% socioeconomic status to republican at 100% socioeconomic status. This means at either end of the spectrum there are hardcore party members that don't need to stay informed about all the candidates at all, they just pay attention to their panhandling or sunbathing on their yacht until it's time to vote straight down one side of the ballot. Only those with moderate socioeconomic status, and therefore moderate education, will think for themselves best.
I don't agree with that logical deduction either, I'm just disproving yours.
...I see the point you are trying to make. I just have one question: Do you not think there is at least a slight inverse correlation between intelligence/socioeconomic standing and number of misinformed voters.?
Honestly, no. Stating you think intelligence has something to do with being informed is insulting.
If anything there is a direct correlation between socioeconomic status and misinformed voters, because those with a plush lifestyle are less likely to care about the fate of the nation as a whole. If the next president may decide where your next meal is coming from, you tend to care more.
The first statement was meant to be sarcasm, hence why I said two lines later that I understood your point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you're making claims with false logic. Come up with something iron-clad or get something to back it up.nukchebi0 wrote:
But why should we use facts when we can argue entirely from our own logic?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You threw out a statement with no factual backing, using only logical deduction. I can do that too.
You claim as education increases the percent of the populace that is informed increases. However, as education increases there is a bell curve from one political party to the other, from liberal at 0% socioeconomic status to republican at 100% socioeconomic status. This means at either end of the spectrum there are hardcore party members that don't need to stay informed about all the candidates at all, they just pay attention to their panhandling or sunbathing on their yacht until it's time to vote straight down one side of the ballot. Only those with moderate socioeconomic status, and therefore moderate education, will think for themselves best.
I don't agree with that logical deduction either, I'm just disproving yours.
...I see the point you are trying to make. I just have one question: Do you not think there is at least a slight inverse correlation between intelligence/socioeconomic standing and number of misinformed voters.?
Honestly, no. Stating you think intelligence has something to do with being informed is insulting.
If anything there is a direct correlation between socioeconomic status and misinformed voters, because those with a plush lifestyle are less likely to care about the fate of the nation as a whole. If the next president may decide where your next meal is coming from, you tend to care more.
It's hard to detect sarcasm over the internet.nukchebi0 wrote:
The first statement was meant to be sarcasm, hence why I said two lines later that I understood your point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you're making claims with false logic. Come up with something iron-clad or get something to back it up.nukchebi0 wrote:
But why should we use facts when we can argue entirely from our own logic?
...I see the point you are trying to make. I just have one question: Do you not think there is at least a slight inverse correlation between intelligence/socioeconomic standing and number of misinformed voters.?
Honestly, no. Stating you think intelligence has something to do with being informed is insulting.
If anything there is a direct correlation between socioeconomic status and misinformed voters, because those with a plush lifestyle are less likely to care about the fate of the nation as a whole. If the next president may decide where your next meal is coming from, you tend to care more.
I know.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's hard to detect sarcasm over the internet.nukchebi0 wrote:
The first statement was meant to be sarcasm, hence why I said two lines later that I understood your point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you're making claims with false logic. Come up with something iron-clad or get something to back it up.
Honestly, no. Stating you think intelligence has something to do with being informed is insulting.
If anything there is a direct correlation between socioeconomic status and misinformed voters, because those with a plush lifestyle are less likely to care about the fate of the nation as a whole. If the next president may decide where your next meal is coming from, you tend to care more.
Agreed, but the same thing should be done to those responsible for keeping the goddamn Electoral College in place. That's just as fucked up as superdelegates.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Superdelegates are really quite the epic failure of an idea though...whoever comes up with that needs to be given some sort of award and then removed from the gene pool.
And before anyone mentions it, yes, I know it's there for the small states, but fuck the small states. The big states are the ones that fund everything the most, while the small states typically suck up more funds than they produce.
So fuck the small states. The big states SHOULD have more of a say in things if they're the ones putting in the most money.
The electoral college actually gives smaller states a larger say in the election than the bigger ones.