|
Post by James McClelland on Jul 12, 2010 1:51:35 GMT -5
This discussion is making benevolent dictatorship more and more appealing. Naw, let's become an empire, with an emperor and SHIRT.
|
|
|
Post by penguinpalsrkewl on Jul 12, 2010 11:49:13 GMT -5
I'll admit that it's late at night and I want to sleep so I'm not reading any of the responses past Ashers first post.
Pretty much. You are making it sound like if we made our government truely democratic, then EVERYBODY would be FORCED to vote. I'm going to relate this to Dan's project if you don't mind. People can suggest ideas for him. People can vote it up or down if they want to. They don't have to. Now back to the government. If we made it truely democratic, people would still have the choice whether to vote like that or not. And about the whole, reading a 500 page bill. That's the thing. People who don't specialize or aren't educated about a certain subject. This is where the whole Wikipedia idea comes. I'm not saying they should use wikipedia to make government choices. I mean that idea. A combination of all the worlds knowledge... or whatever the saying was. If all the people who are educated about a certain topic rather than uneducated people who are paid to read a 500 page bill could work together to collaborate/vote on it... I personally think that would be so much more efficient.
I know.. 'how can you just get a group of specialized people together, especially if we wanted to make a group like that for every single topic in the world? I dunno. But wikipedia is... growing as a community. and... I dunno... communities like this are growing everywhere on the internet.
I apologize if I went off topic.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 12, 2010 12:11:36 GMT -5
you would think so...but honestly do people really want to be forced into all that? think of all the information...moreover take into account what i said earlier...or in a different thread...whatever...what about classified intelligence? what would you do with that? send it out to each resident with a little top secret sticker on it?
true democracy is completely impractical. people will not truly educate themselves...what would happen would simply be a media takeover. whoever owned the media would own the country. plain and simple. not everyone is as smart, or as interested in their country, or world as you are jocelyn.
|
|
|
Post by penguinpalsrkewl on Jul 12, 2010 12:33:40 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying. People who aren't interested shouldn't be bothered. Media doesn't have to takeover. Whoever IS interested, which is most likely someone who already specializes in, or is interested in specializing in, can be involved if they want to. They'll use the knowledge they have, collaborate with others with knowledge in the same topic, and... well... yeah.
But again. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think democracy mean forcing people into it. Just... whoever is interested. And don't be so pessimistic about it, because there are always people who are interested in something.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 12, 2010 12:35:20 GMT -5
whoever is interested...and therein lies the problem. 10% of the country...20% maybe...30% at the outside...?
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 12, 2010 12:39:12 GMT -5
Hmmm....a small percentage of people that are willing to run the country. That sounds a little bit like.....
our current system.
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on Jul 12, 2010 14:51:23 GMT -5
Bill 1 - Everyone will receive a $500 check a month in the mail Bill 2 - Taxes will be suspended for 2 years due to attempt a new government structure Bill 3 - Food Stamps sums will be increased and Unemployment Benefits increased and extended.
Wow more money everyone join in an vote!
Bill 4 - 10.5 billion dollars will be allocated to California to help find a solution to waning water and energy supplies Well that's just one state getting all that... hell no! Never mind they make up roughly 10% of the US population
Bill 5 - NASA's budget will be increased by 4.5 billion dollars Think of all the hungry people that could feed and how much of that I could be getting. Hell no! Nevermind the fact that they do oh so much more than space exploration and all the worker's jobs that are there.
Bill 6 - Bill banning the distribution and use of Dihydrogen monoxide as it has been found to be a cause of 26% of the deaths for children 1-4 and an average of 9 people a day (3,308 people) died from this deadly chemical in 2004 and an estimated 100%-400% more conditions serious enough to result in hospitalizations occur for each death according to the CDC.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHA
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 12, 2010 17:50:36 GMT -5
The representatives decide, or each person decides? Which is better? How is it better? How or could it blend to be better still? Discuss. And for those of you who may be confused, the united states is a republic not a democracy, hence "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands..." I'll let a few people weigh in before I give my opinion. Bomb, I'm eagerly awaiting your POV. Well the U.S. was originally intended to be a democracy hence "By the people for the people" and schools still teach that it is a democracy but you're right, it isn't. In a true democracy people are given the right to vote and the majority vote decides what's best for the majority of the people. In the U.S. we do have a voting system however it is not run by the people for the people. As an example the fact that we had Bush as President when Al Gore won the election. The reason Bush got in and not Gore is because of the Electoral College. Voting by the people really has little to do with how elections actually work, the Electoral College is what actually decides who wins. Along the same lines when I was in high school the big thing my last year of school was teachers trying to get me to register to vote when I turned 18. Saying how important it was and all that crap which makes me wander how much people really understand when the people who teach the subject don't even realize the people's vote doesn't even matter. My parents don't even vote for a different reason. Back when the whole Florida situation was going on where they had to recount the votes for Florida it actually pissed off my parents because they stopped voting a long while before this where the same type of situation happened in California only they didn't bother waiting till all the votes came in. So for Florida we waited but for California we announce the president before they even get all the votes in. Basically the entire voting system in the states is a big waist of time. And even if it actually mattered people still should not be pushing others to vote. It's suppose to be a right, a freedom of choice, not a requirement. People who try to push it act as if you're not a real American unless you vote. Not voting is just as American as voting is. It's still a choice and that's what America was founded on, the freedom of choice. If you're telling someone they have to vote there's no freedom in that. I think people look too much into what we can do as Americans and forget the reasons we were given these freedoms in the first place which causes them not to be freedoms anymore. Simply put, it's the freedom of choice not the requirement to vote or else.
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on Jul 12, 2010 18:04:59 GMT -5
I disagree, but that's offtopic. I'll pick it up later.
|
|
Engesa Green once more
Meteor
Once upon a time there was a suggestion that we should all write our names on our profile. I'm Ebbe.
Posts: 89
|
Post by Engesa Green once more on Jul 14, 2010 10:24:11 GMT -5
so conclusions are that USA needs to fix their voting system to; instead of making averything so complicated to just make it a simple matter of saying "The votes in California plus the votes in Ohio..." and so on...
And that nontrue democracy is best since you then vote someone in who has the aproximately same opinions as you and who are educated enough to vote on stuff...
Am I wrong? If you think so please tell me why.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jul 16, 2010 19:08:35 GMT -5
No other country would want the violent criminals, at least not for free, so you would have to either pay large sums of money to other countries or dump them into the ocean. What if a couple have a kid and he only has an IQ of 115 and doesn't like politics? Deport him when he turns 18? Those would only be problems for a couple of years. That'd all be sorted out within a generation. All the violent criminals would quickly be sorted out, leaving only a few to deal with later, and the incredibly high median IQ would make the likelihood of lesser intelligence babies decrease exponentially.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jul 16, 2010 19:29:59 GMT -5
rialvestro I disagree with just about every single point made in your post. Voting by the people really has little to do with how elections actually work, the Electoral College is what actually decides who wins. True and false. Yes, the electoral college has the final say at who is elected president, but the electoral college always votes on the lines of whatever their state voted for. I agree, that the electoral college is an outdated and obsolete institution that causes travesties like the 2000 election, but to say that the people's vote has little to do with the decision is faaaaar from the truth. The electoral college is just a slightly less accurate measure of who people voted for, and this inaccuracy can cause things like that. Saying how important it was and all that crap which makes me wander how much people really understand when the people who teach the subject don't even realize the people's vote doesn't even matter. Sounds like you got some hardcore teen angst going on. Referring to the bolded section, here's a secret: They know substantially more about how much it matters than you do. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that you're under the delusion that we just throw out people's votes, and then some mythical board of magicians picks the results of the election at random. Like I said, the electoral college is outdated, but it doesn't completely ignore the will of the people, and the electoral college only applies to presidential elections. We elect every other position directly. So for Florida we waited but for California we announce the president before they even get all the votes in. They do recounts by request of the candidates. If the candidate doesn't ask for a recount, they don't do one. And even if it actually mattered people still should not be pushing others to vote. Ignoring the fact that you think voting doesn't matter, I agree that people shouldn't be pushed towards voting just for the sake of voting. I think that's how Republicans ever get elected. XD Small joke, but I think the pushing would be better spent pushing people towards finding out about the issues, and finding out about the candidates track records toward those issues. Then, if they feel the need to vote, which they most likely will if they sufficiently inform themselves on the matter, then at least they have the information to make an educated decision. You mention the freedom of choice that this country was founded on, and it's hard to disagree with that. Personally, I believe in Jefferson's view of the country and it's electorate. Education should be of a high enough priority and quality that whether or not someone votes should not be an issue, because EVERYONE will want to vote if they are well-informed. A well-informed constituency elects a well-informed government. Due to my laziness and short attention span, I have decided not to read your lengthy post.: Votes count, and voting matters.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 16, 2010 20:46:20 GMT -5
rialvestro I disagree with just about every single point made in your post. Well it looks like there's a couple points you may of misunderstand. I'll try to clarify for you and if you still disagree then that's fine. I just want you to have a better understanding of my point of view, I don't care if you agree or not. OK this is actually an easy one because in a way you are actually agreeing with what I said and you didn't even realize it. However there's one point I don't understand on your end. Where does the false come into play? You explained the truth part well and that's where we agree but I don't understand where you get the false from. OK first of all, that teem angst comment. You're the teenager in this conversation provided that's your real age. I actually bothered to look at your profile and see that you're 17. I'm 24, I graduated high school in 2004. Secondly you're assuming quite allot that was never said at all, or even insinuated. I'm speaking of your comments about the magicians. Now you can believe what you want but I would thank you if for the rest of this conversation you would speak to me with more respect than this. I don't really know what the circumstances of the other election was that caused my parents to stop voting, that happened before I was even born. I just know they were pissed about the whole Florida thing. That being said I really don't think recounts should be allowed except in the event of a tie. The poll is open for voting for a set amount of time and once it closes all votes that went in should be counted and that's it. I totally agree that people should be informed about the issues and the candidates. However simply being informed isn't going to make people vote. I mean it is possible to hate both candidates and it's not enough to just pick the lesser of two evils. I'd much rather put in a write in vote for someone I actually know and trust than to vote for anyone actually running. The problem with that is getting other people to vote for my write in. Why are we voting for strangers anyway, doesn't it make more sense to write in names of people you know and trust who are willing to run? Ignoring the fact you think your vote really matters what difference does it make if I hate both options? The last election was actually interesting though because it was a colored man vs. a woman so either way I'd be a first for something as president. I'm glad he won though because I didn't really want Clinton as the first woman president. Maybe some time in the future a better woman will come along and claim the first female president title. At the same time, even though he won, there seems to be allot more racialism towards him from people who claim not to even be racist. I mean when you start saying the N word and complaining that he's going to paint the white house black (he isn't that's just a joke that's been going around) that's racist. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this kinda thing but I have where I live.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jul 17, 2010 0:35:23 GMT -5
It was actually a white man vs. a black man... But I get what you're saying. XD
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 17, 2010 14:36:51 GMT -5
It was actually a white man vs. a black man... But I get what you're saying. XD That's after Hillery dropped out of the Election. I was talking about when she was still running. For a while it was black man vs. woman.
|
|
Obilink
Meteor
Pink is a Plus
Posts: 68
|
Post by Obilink on Jul 17, 2010 15:00:06 GMT -5
To my knowledge, smart/educated people make better decisions than dumb/uneducated people. Based on this, I prefer the idea of a Republic over a Democracy.
However, that is based on the idea that only smart/educated people are politicians, which is simply not true. That also is based on the idea that politicians aren't corrupt, which is also not true.
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Jul 17, 2010 16:17:26 GMT -5
I totally agree that people should be informed about the issues and the candidates. However simply being informed isn't going to make people vote. I mean it is possible to hate both candidates and it's not enough to just pick the lesser of two evils. I'd much rather put in a write in vote for someone I actually know and trust than to vote for anyone actually running. The problem with that is getting other people to vote for my write in. Why are we voting for strangers anyway, doesn't it make more sense to write in names of people you know and trust who are willing to run? I don't know about the U.S.A. but where I'm from if you turn in an empty ballot that means you like no candidate but if you don't vote it means you're just lazy. And if you know and trust people who are willing to run then have them run and then you can vote for them.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jul 17, 2010 22:55:40 GMT -5
It was actually a white man vs. a black man... But I get what you're saying. XD That's after Hillery dropped out of the Election. I was talking about when she was still running. For a while it was black man vs. woman. You seem not to understand the 2008 election. XD Allow me to explain. After a somewhat less heated struggle on the Republican side of the ballot, John McCain won the Republican Primary, and was selected as Republican Nominee for President. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were competing for the position of Democratic Nominee for President. Barack Obama won the Democratic Primary, and so was chosen to be the Democratic Nominee for President. Hilary Clinton never dropped out of the election, because she was never a candidate on the ballot. She lost the Democratic Primary, and was later chosen as Barack Obama's running mate. The actual election was always between John McCain and Barack Obama (And other third-party candidates).
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 19, 2010 1:53:09 GMT -5
I totally agree that people should be informed about the issues and the candidates. However simply being informed isn't going to make people vote. I mean it is possible to hate both candidates and it's not enough to just pick the lesser of two evils. I'd much rather put in a write in vote for someone I actually know and trust than to vote for anyone actually running. The problem with that is getting other people to vote for my write in. Why are we voting for strangers anyway, doesn't it make more sense to write in names of people you know and trust who are willing to run? I don't know about the U.S.A. but where I'm from if you turn in an empty ballot that means you like no candidate but if you don't vote it means you're just lazy. And if you know and trust people who are willing to run then have them run and then you can vote for them. I'm surprised he didn't say anything but you quoted the wrong person. kipenyan never said that, I did. Fix your tag please.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Jul 21, 2010 1:10:28 GMT -5
Those would only be problems for a couple of years. That'd all be sorted out within a generation. All the violent criminals would quickly be sorted out, leaving only a few to deal with later, and the incredibly high median IQ would make the likelihood of lesser intelligence babies decrease exponentially. Eugenics is always the best option if you're the master race, yes?
|
|