D.e.m.o.c.r.a.c.y (((((((((dicttor))))))))))

[ilw]

In general people seem not to question the spreading of democracy, its one of the few beliefs we in the west seem perfectly happy to impose on people and i was wondering why?

Imo democracy is inherently flawed due to its reliance on the quality and knowledge of the voters <_< . Did you know that over 50% of people are below average intelligence :blink: I&#39;ve actually never voted, I missed my chance at the last general election because my flatmate misplaced my postal vote, I don&#39;t know who i would have voted for, but chances are i would have known and understood incredibly little about the policies and effects thereof of whichever party i voted for, and i suspect that in that situation i would not have been alone. The average voter knows little and understands less. Throw in the intricacies & vagaries of inter and intra party dynamics and that the general public only seem to think of self-interest short term benefit and i think that sums up most of my main reasons for disliking democracy.

Its not that i totally dislike the idea of democracy, perhaps with some modifications it could be better. I read somewhere that america used to have a literacy test for voters, but that it was scrapped, i think the idea of some form of voter testing is a sound one, perhaps not of literacy, but maybe of knowledge and understanding of policies? This would no doubt increase voter apathy, but the average quality of each vote may rise.


If anyone has any thoughts on why democracy is actually a good way of making decisions...

to quote the bard

Originally posted by i have add

huh C u gyus just stay quite just like in the past to afraid to find out the truth
cause then u think WTF have i been doing im still gona DIE every 1 dies but new
ppl come to shape the world for better or for worse
Plzz post ur comments especially any thoeries u ppl Might have

(Sorry if anything doesn&#39;t make sense, I&#39;m half asleep)

[hobbes]

It is a good way of thinking because it empowers the interested individual with the ability to control (or believe that he can) his future.

Laws to exclude people from voting would be perceived as a scam by "those in control" to shun those who are asking for change and help.

For instance, blacks were allowed to vote after being freed, but then some States said, "Oh wait, you have to own land in order to vote". Just a way the system can screen those who it does not want to participate.

And no, most blacks could not read either, it was illegal to teach this to a slave.

The concept that people are given a sense of empowerment, a sense of some control over their destiny, is a fine and noble one. Although people may not be versed in politics, people often know what they want from a new government and vote to secure their interests.

My parents, for instance, are more concerned about medication costs and health care issues than anything else and this will control their vote.

I still am in favor of the benevolent dictator myself, but that is another story.

[clocker]

Originally posted by ilw@27 December 2003 - 19:15
Did you know that over 50% of people are below average intelligence
How can this be?
Wouldn&#39;t this fact lower the "average" in "average intelligence"?

[the.gringo]

Originally posted by clocker+28 December 2003 - 03:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 December 2003 - 03:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@27 December 2003 - 19:15
Did you know that over 50% of people are below average intelligence
How can this be?
Wouldn&#39;t this fact lower the "average" in "average intelligence"? [/b][/quote]
the boy makes a good point

[hobbes]

Originally posted by the.gringo+28 December 2003 - 04:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (the.gringo &#064; 28 December 2003 - 04:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@28 December 2003 - 03:05
<!--QuoteBegin-ilw@27 December 2003 - 19:15
Did you know that over 50% of people are below average intelligence
How can this be?
Wouldn&#39;t this fact lower the "average" in "average intelligence"?
the boy makes a good point[/b][/quote]
http://mecha.barry.edu/public/gallery/pix/6bscout1.jpg

I smell "merit badge" for a certain "boy".

[clocker]

Thanks hobbes, but my badge sash is already full.

[junkyardking]

A true democracy is where everybody participates, thou this can also be referred as mob rule.

In Australia once you register on the electoral roll it&#39;s compulsory to vote, not showing up to vote at an election will get you fined, if you refuse to pay you’ll get imprisoned usually for a short term 7 - 30 days, this seems to put a halt to groups getting undue amounts of say over policy unlike the US were this seems rife, but it doesn’t completely stop it.

In the last election John Howard used a racist streak in Australians to win the last election by treating Refugees as a threat, proving that racism was alive and well in the electorate, a compassionate doco about refugees even had people making ignorant statements like "there’s not enough room for them" and so on, Although in reality John Howard has allowed many more people to migrate to Australia as long as they have money that is. :angry: :angry:

[the.gringo]

Originally posted by hobbes+28 December 2003 - 03:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 28 December 2003 - 03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by the.gringo@28 December 2003 - 04:14

Originally posted by clocker@28 December 2003 - 03:05
<!--QuoteBegin-ilw@27 December 2003 - 19:15
Did you know that over 50% of people are below average intelligence
How can this be?
Wouldn&#39;t this fact lower the "average" in "average intelligence"?
the boy makes a good point
http://mecha.barry.edu/public/gallery/pix/6bscout1.jpg

I smell "merit badge" for a certain "boy". [/b][/quote]
lmao


is that ur kid hobbes?

[clocker]

His kid?
That is hobbes himself.

[kAb]

There is talk about allowing only high school educated citizens to vote in the u.s.

but this is silly.

does this mean that the hooker who dropped out of high school, can&#39;t choose the candidate who she thinks will allow her to have abortions.

whether you agree or not, she is still a c itizen of the united states and deserves her vote.

If you go after intelligence, what next, weight?

then 65% of americans wouldn&#39;t be able to vote.

But The U.S. needs to wake up and realize that having the right to vote is an amazing achievment, its sad that what, 11% of the voting population actually votes?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by kAb@28 December 2003 - 07:46
But The U.S. needs to wake up and realize that having the right to vote is an amazing achievment, its sad that what, 11% of the voting population actually votes?
This low number can either be good or bad.

Good: Things are going well, the new administration probably won&#39;t screw things up too much, whomever wins. The apathy stems from lack of need for significant change. Once severe problems arise you will see a lot more interest in politics by the average citizen. Outside of college students, politics is a subject of very little interest here in the States. In some countries, politics are discussed with every meal.

Bad: The system is corrupt, my vote doesn&#39;t really count.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by ilw@27 December 2003 - 20:15
I read somewhere that america used to have a literacy test for voters, but that it was scrapped,

* With good reason it was meant to keep blacks, who usually weren&#39;t taught to read at the time , from voting.

* If you place restriction on who is to vote there is always the question of who is to determine what the restricitons are and the
possibility of some classes gaining too much power over the others.

* I don&#39;t know the exact numbers but i think about 98 percent of people are within 10 -20 iq points away from average in either
direction(anyone know the exact numbers)

* We have known for a long time that IQ test are not good measures of who will make intelligent decisions in life, they rely too heavily on verbal intelligence, a persons skill at taking tests, and on knowledge. And are best at doing what that were originally meant to do - predict who will have problems in school.

* If 50% of people are below average that is half the population that needs to be represented.


I think the best thing that could be done is to offer the more information that can be easily accessible. I Also thinks it would be better if we had more power over individual decisions, not groups of them. I don&#39;t think we should be stuck trying to choose one person who we know little about, to make all of the best choices.

Edit: bad typing, spacing

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by clocker+27 December 2003 - 21:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 December 2003 - 21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@27 December 2003 - 19:15
Did you know that over 50% of people are below average intelligence
How can this be?
Wouldn&#39;t this fact lower the "average" in "average intelligence"? [/b][/quote]
Yeah It&#39;s an average. :lol: Iq is measured on a bell curve.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by hobbes+28 December 2003 - 10:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 28 December 2003 - 10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kAb@28 December 2003 - 07:46
But The U.S. needs to wake up and realize that having the right to vote is an amazing achievment, its sad that what, 11% of the voting population actually votes?
This low number can either be good or bad.

Good: Things are going well, the new administration probably won&#39;t screw things up too much, whomever wins. The apathy stems from lack of need for significant change. Once severe problems arise you will see a lot more interest in politics by the average citizen. Outside of college students, politics is a subject of very little interest here in the States. In some countries, politics are discussed with every meal.

Bad: The system is corrupt, my vote doesn&#39;t really count. [/b][/quote]
Like i said I think it is a lack of adequate information, on the other hand if things were worse i would probably put a lot more effortin in to obtainig infromation, so maybe it is a little of both.

[hobbes]

Two points:

1) Your point has been covered, read the thread before posting in this forum (first post).
2) Since you obviously made little effort to make your post intelligible, why should anybody waste time reading it?

I agree with your position, but damn that is a really sloppy load you dropped. One would think that if you really gave a shit about what you were saying, you would have made an effort to express yourself more articulately.

[Chame1eon]

Since you obviously made little effort to make your post intelligible

Maybe it was kinda sloppy



Your point has been covered, read the thread before posting in this forum

i was just giving my opinion before i read the posts. I do think it adds a little though.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Chame1eon@29 December 2003 - 00:15

Since you obviously made little effort to make your post intelligible

Maybe it was kinda sloppy



Your point has been covered, read the thread before posting in this forum

i was just giving my opinion before i read the posts. I do think it adds a little though.
"NO VOTING FOR YOU&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;", said the Soup Nazi

[billyfridge]

In England, over 30% don&#39;t bother to vote because they are either, apathetic, or think everything is ok, which is good or bad, depends which way you look at it. i think people should be made to vote like Australia.
If we had a referendum on going into Europe, everybody would vote because it&#39;s such a topical subject.

[3RA1N1AC]

keep in mind that the american and british democratic systems aren&#39;t democracies in the strict sense, anyway. they&#39;re representative democracies, with quite a few quirks here & there that exclude them from being "pure" democracies (i.e. the electoral college, the house of lords, etc).

[MagicNakor]

If you want to get picky, the United States of America is a federal republic, and England is a constitutional monarchy (with an unwritten constitution) combined with a representative democracy.

:ninja:

[ilw]

errm the 50% comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek, though i suppose it could have been median average :rolleyes:

While i agree testing is very open to abuse, I think its valid. Basically my argument for it is that I can&#39;t see why we don&#39;t let children vote. If the reason is that we consider them unable to make a valid and informed choice then i think that argument applies to a much greater percentage of the population, myself probably included.


If we had a referendum on going into Europe, everybody would vote because it&#39;s such a topical subject.
I was thinking about bringing referendums up, for instance the vote on the Euro which the UK government have long been side stepping. I really don&#39;t understand how the public is supposed to decide on a subject as complex as joining a single economic policy. I feel the public will end up basing the vote primarily on short term financial gain and a bizarre assortment of patriotic/nationalistic pride and prejudice. I suppose democracy does give people power over their own destiny, but are they capable of handling the responsibility.

I don&#39;t care about voter apathy/turnouts, as long as those who do vote know wtf they are actually voting for. I would never have a system of forcing everyone to vote, as this would not make the decision reached any more intelligent or reasoned (imo the reverse would be true).



If 50% of people are below average that is half the population that needs to be represented.
Surely you don&#39;t really mean this? If you do then i sincerely hope you are never involved in electoral reform :ph34r:

[Rat Faced]

If people were forced to vote in the UK, then the Monster & Raving Loony Party would have seats in the commons....almost certainly.








This may not be a bad idea <_<

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 December 2003 - 10:59
If people were forced to vote in the UK, then the Monster & Raving Loony Party would have seats in the commons....almost certainly.









I have no idea what their politics might be but they have my vote based solely on the name.

[ilw]

Alan Howling Lord Hope is the current Leader of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Until recently, Alan shared the Party Leadership with Cat Mandu, his cat. Sadly, Mandu was killed in a tragic road accident in 2002.
Didn&#39;t someone say that they actually won a seat once and weren&#39;t half bad? I think we could do worse...


The Natural Law Party offers a simple formula to create a perfect government capable of satisfying everyone. The formula is: establish A Group for a Government. The first act of the Natural Law Party when it takes office will be to establish a group of 7,000 Yogic Flyers in Britain, who will create a highly coherent national consciousness, bring the support of the evolutionary power of Natural Law to national life, and create an atmosphere in which everything will be right, positive and harmonious in our government. ... [then] we will have a clear sky and a new sunshine to make successful policies and programmes for all good to the nation.

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by ilw@28 December 2003 - 02:15
I&#39;ve actually never voted...
I stopped reading after that.

[Rat Faced]

They&#39;ve won a couple of council seats in local elections, and were quite good...except for the main parties "Ganging up" against them, from what i have heard.

Unfortunatly, ive never had the opportunity to vote for them myself, as they&#39;ve never stood in this location..shame :)




The Natural Law Party offers a simple formula to create a perfect government capable of satisfying everyone. The formula is: establish A Group for a Government. The first act of the Natural Law Party when it takes office will be to establish a group of 7,000 Yogic Flyers in Britain, who will create a highly coherent national consciousness, bring the support of the evolutionary power of Natural Law to national life, and create an atmosphere in which everything will be right, positive and harmonious in our government. ... [then] we will have a clear sky and a new sunshine to make successful policies and programmes for all good to the nation.


Sounds like New Labour, except for the yogic flyers....give &#39;em time though............. :P


@ Clocker Here&#39;s (http://www.omrlp.com/) their website :)

[ilw]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha+29 December 2003 - 17:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sid Hartha @ 29 December 2003 - 17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@28 December 2003 - 02:15
I&#39;ve actually never voted...
I stopped reading after that. [/b][/quote]
perhaps you should go back and try again, I did give vague details on why i tried & missed out on voting at the only general election i&#39;ve been eligible for.
I&#39;m also curious as to why my not having voted matters, as far as i can tell it has no bearing on the value or level of interest of my post&#39;s content except that i might know the joy of making a fairly insignificant (considering the distance between the two main parties in the constituency i live in) contribution to who will govern the country I live in.

[Sid Hartha]

So - in other words - you have never actually voted.

[Biggles]

Despite my cynicism I invariably plod down to the poll booth. Sadly, more in hope than any real expectation that anything much will change.

Although far from perfect, what could one have other than a representative democracy. Although benign dictatorships tend to get things done there are far too few safeguards to prevent the "benign" part being dropped.

There is a school of thought that suggests that countries run best when politicians do least. :blink: But then a cynic would say that wouldn&#39;t he?

A quote I rather like is "It doesn&#39;t matter who you vote for - the government always gets in" - not that I am suggesting we all rush out and read Gramsci - he was a little too earnest for my taste. I prefer my anarchists to be more of the Tooting Popular Front variety. However, there is a sense of everything pretty much going on as normal regardless of the party in power. Despite all her dislike of public spending, Mrs T did not really make much impact on the % of GDP spent on public services.

[ilw]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha@29 December 2003 - 19:04
So - in other words - you have never actually voted.
Wow, theres no sneaking things past you, whats your nickname... Razor?

Do you perhaps have a point? and if so, would you mind sharing?

[Rat Faced]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1977/images/citizensmith173.jpg

Power to the People

And for all our younger viewers..Here&#39;s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1977/tvclip.shtml) what we&#39;re talking about....










I&#39;ll get me coat......

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by ilw+29 December 2003 - 21:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 29 December 2003 - 21:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sid Hartha@29 December 2003 - 19:04
So - in other words - you have never actually voted.
Wow, theres no sneaking things past you, whats your nickname... Razor?

Do you perhaps have a point? and if so, would you mind sharing? [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m sorry.

I just find it hilarious that you bothered to offer an explanation for why you missed the last elections ("my flatmate..."), yet you question the intelligence of people who managed to make it to the polls - let alone the entire system.

The irony escapes you.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha+29 December 2003 - 21:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sid Hartha @ 29 December 2003 - 21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by ilw@29 December 2003 - 21:08
<!--QuoteBegin-Sid Hartha@29 December 2003 - 19:04
So - in other words - you have never actually voted.
Wow, theres no sneaking things past you, whats your nickname... Razor?

Do you perhaps have a point? and if so, would you mind sharing?
I&#39;m sorry.

I just find it hilarious that you bothered to offer an explanation for why you missed the last elections ("my flatmate..."), yet you question the intelligence of people who managed to make it to the polls - let alone the entire system.

The irony escapes you. [/b][/quote]
One of you reminds me of J&#39;Pol.

[3RA1N1AC]

how about this-- instead of having people go into the booth and pull lever A for the party on the left or lever B for the party on the right...

... they put a slot machine (brits call it a fruit machine, i believe) in the booth, with pictures of the candidates&#39; faces on the wheels, and whoever&#39;s face lines up after you pull, that&#39;s who you&#39;ve voted for. if you don&#39;t get three in a row, then your vote doesn&#39;t count. :D

[ilw]

I don&#39;t think i&#39;m qualified to vote either, but I don&#39;t feel that intelligence is really an important deciding factor rather it is the understanding and knowledge of the issues that i find important in deciding who should vote, the 50% intelligence thing was merely a vaguely humorous (to me) throw away comment. However, seeing as even greatly increased intelligence would likely not have helped me locate a postal vote that was basically hidden (without malice) from me by a flatmate, i still fail to see the irony or your point.

Do you actually have a real point to make on the subject of democracy, or on any of the material contributed by others in this debate or is this just trolling?

[Rat Faced]

Unfortunatly, there is no way to measure wisdom as their is intelligence....and Common Sense is in no way common.

Added to which, it doesnt really matter, as whoever gets in will probably not keep their manifesto promises... due "to the legacies of the previous government" even if its 10 years since a the opposition were in power.

We&#39;ve seen it all before...

The electorate will always vote for "Cakes and Circus&#39;s"......cant remember who im quoting there, however it basically means that they will vote for whats best for them personally, and not the country as a whole.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by ilw@29 December 2003 - 11:23


If 50% of people are below average that is half the population that needs to be represented.
Surely you don&#39;t really mean this? If you do then i sincerely hope you are never involved in electoral reform :ph34r:
I can&#39;t belive you&#39;re serious :o
If any group has power over anohter nothing is going to stop them from depriving the powerless group of the things they want and need. If everyone can play a part in making the decisions more people are happy, and cared for . What is the point of having a powerfull government if half of the people are unhappy?
Also, like i ws saying, we don&#39;t have an accurate mesure of intelligence. 50 percent is kind of an arbitrary number. the tests and the way the results are interpreted are constantly adjusted to fit a bell curve with 100 as average. Without the adjustment iq has been improving since the 40&#39;s so that a person with a score of 100 in 1940 would now have score of maybe 75.

[Snee]

I hardly ever vote for anything when it comes to larger elections, on the basis that I either don&#39;t know enough about the agendas of each party, or that what I know about these parties seem stupid.

I fear that many voters in my country only vote a certain way because they always have, or because their union sympathizes with a certain faction, or because they are doing like their parents, or because they are suckers ready to follow whoever shouts the loudest about feminism or enviromental preservation or whatever the next fad may be.

The politicians might not necessarily make a good point, mainly it&#39;s just empty rhetorics but still votes are given them because they are noticed.

To make matters worse, in my country, I sometimes can&#39;t even discern who is supposed to left-wing or conservative or whatever else just by looking at their politics, they just claim to be part of a certain ideology on the basis of tradition.

And if that isn&#39;t enough the media usually manages to make matters even more diffuse. I usually just vote blank just to show my displeasure with the system. That way the mistakes made aren&#39;t mine, of course this still makes me guilty of omission, which is a mistake in itself.

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by ilw@29 December 2003 - 22:10
Do you actually have a real point to make on the subject of democracy, or on any of the material contributed by others in this debate or is this just trolling?
Guilty as charged. I apologize - this does deserve a reply.

Where I live - not too long ago - a very major election was blown (in my opinion) because a minor third party candidate ran mostly on the premise that there wasn&#39;t any appreciable difference between the two "established" candidates. This message apparently caught on, mostly with moderate/liberal voters. They voted for the third party candidate - not because they thought he had a chance, but as a symbolic "other" vote to protest the mediocrity of the other two candidates.

Result: Bad, bad president. Two wars, economy in the shitter... hated by most of the world. I sometimes wonder if anyone who voted for Ralph Nader still believes there was essentially no difference between Bush and Gore.

Just a few votes would have changed all that. Voter apathy fucked us. When intelligent people stay at home (is this you?), that means the dumbasses pick our leaders (eg: USA).

There&#39;s always a difference between candidates.

edit/ so I guess I get a little cranky when someone who doesn&#39;t vote starts a thread like this. ;)

[Pitbul]

me being a teenager have talked and heard other youngins talk about politics and tho the media portrays most teens today and violent morons whose cant walk 2 feet with out tripping it seems as tho most of us give more of a shit about what way the country is going then the so called parents. their will eventually be a generations that dramatically changes the future for tha good whether that me my generation or a few futher down the road i duno all i know is that at this piont in time the only flaws i see in America has to do with the goverment.

[ilw]

Originally posted by Chame1eon@29 December 2003 - 21:28
If any group has power over another nothing is going to stop them from depriving the powerless group of the things they want and need.&nbsp; &nbsp;


Thats really not necessarily true, I&#39;m sure all major political systems these days have checks and balances to stop those in power abusing it too much and people in power don&#39;t necessarily abuse it. The way u seem to be arguing, the obvious thing to do in a full democracy would be to pick on a minority and abuse them, you could essentially make them slaves, they don&#39;t have enough voting power to change things, therefore giving those in power free rein to abuse them.



If everyone can play a part in making the decisions more people are happy, and cared for.
Well i disagree that less people would be happy and cared for in a non-full democracy, it doesn&#39;t really necessarily follow. Or are you perhaps suggesting some sort of placebo effect from ticking a box once every x years :P or maybe that in a democracy the people have no one to blame but themselves so they&#39;re inherently happier?




Also, like i ws saying, we don&#39;t have an accurate mesure of intelligence. 50 percent is kind of an arbitrary number...
I should never have brought up intelligence, i never thought it was a good way of deciding voting ability, but 50% isn&#39;t really an arbitrary number.


If 50% of people are below average that is half the population that needs to be represented.
I took this to mean that the less intelligent 1/2 of the population should be more strongly represented than the more intelligent 1/2 which sounded crazy to me, but I&#39;m guessing thats probably not what you meant.



so I guess I get a little cranky when someone who doesn&#39;t vote starts a thread like this. ;)

np :lol: :P

[Chame1eon]

I really hope you&#39;re not right.


"Cakes and Circus&#39;s"......

I think that people will vote for what they want, but i think they will put thought into it and not jsut vote for trivial things as the quote seems to suggest. (maybe that&#39;s not what you were suggesting)


..will probably not keep their manifesto promises..

I&#39;m not sure how brittish government works, but here, if polititions are concerned about being reelected and or about looking like jerks in the public eye they will keep their promises. I know history proves that it&#39;s not perfect , but i think it does temper political honesty.

like a already said, i htink one of the most effective routes to reform right now is better education, about democracy, the alternatives, and about the issues that people in school will soon be effecting. I know that the people in my shcool at least could have benefited from a more challengeing and practical curriculum.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by SnnY@29 December 2003 - 16:33
I hardly ever vote for anything when it comes to larger elections, on the basis that I either don&#39;t know enough about the agendas of each party, or that what I know about these parties seem stupid.

I fear that many voters in my country only vote a certain way because they always have, or because their union sympathizes with a certain faction, or because they are doing like their parents, or because they are suckers ready to follow whoever shouts the loudest about feminism or enviromental preservation or whatever the next fad may be.

The politicians might not necessarily make a good point, mainly it&#39;s just empty rhetorics but still votes are given them because they are noticed.

To make matters worse, in my country, I sometimes can&#39;t even discern who is supposed to left-wing or conservative or whatever else just by looking at their politics, they just claim to be part of a certain ideology on the basis of tradition.

And if that isn&#39;t enough the media usually manages to make matters even more diffuse. I usually just vote blank just to show my displeasure with the system. That way the mistakes made aren&#39;t mine, of course this still makes me guilty of omission, which is a mistake in itself.
I agree completely. I think that is one of the major flaws. Most of the stuff that you see in the media 90% rhetoric Most of the information you get has nothing to do with real issues.
I aslo think that most of the people who do vote rely on oversimplified methods for choosing a president. That&#39;s why i think that voters should have more access to indiviual issues, and why the having to choose between 2 parties or individuals doesn&#39;t work.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by ilw@29 December 2003 - 17:11




If everyone can play a part in making the decisions more people are happy, and cared for.
Well i disagree that less people would be happy and cared for in a non-full democracy, it doesn&#39;t really necessarily follow. Or are you perhaps suggesting some sort of placebo effect from ticking a box once every x years :P or maybe that in a democracy the people have no one to blame but themselves so they&#39;re inherently happier?


Most countries are way to big for a full democracy, and i don&#39;t know if individuals have ienough time for that, but that would be ideal :)

[ilw]

I really hope you&#39;re not right.

"Cakes and Circus&#39;s"......
California governor is a good example isn&#39;t it? He&#39;s a big moviestar with a dodgy history = circus. No tax rises = cakes.
I find it hard to believe that he had the best long term fiscal policy or that he&#39;s the best person for the job, but he offered a small short term financial advantage and he managed to get enough press coverage and bingo.


I&#39;m not sure how british government works, but here, if politicians are concerned about being reelected and/or about looking like jerks in the public eye they will keep their promises.
here both main parties are as bad as each other at keeping promises it seems, therefore even if they do badly they still have a fair chance of being reelected.

Interestingly some politicians are expecting the next general election to give a hung government for the first time in (i think) ages, this will no doubt give a much greater amount of power and coverage to the liberals (the 3rd party in British politics). I think they&#39;re also expecting a significant rise in votes for the liberals because hatred of the conservative party is still present, but labour have not acted as many hoped and Blair is blamed for taking this country to war. I think theres a general feeling of giving the liberals their shot just for the craic (and in some ways as a protest against the others).

[ilw]

Originally posted by Chame1eon@29 December 2003 - 22:51
Most countries are way to big for a full democracy, and i don&#39;t know if individuals have ienough time for that, but that would be ideal :)
A true democracy where everyone votes on everything would be terrible, theres no way everyone can be experts on everything. A representative democracy at least gives the possibility that the decisions are made by people who are fully aware of the situation.

Also in a democracy you will always have parties/groups because it is the best way of gaining power in a democracy. You sacrafice your influence on various topics, in order to gain power over the topics that are important to you. Together in a democracy you are strong, divided you are weak.

[Chame1eon]

I agree, but i think we could come closer

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha@29 December 2003 - 22:48
Where I live - not too long ago - a very major election was blown (in my opinion) because a minor third party candidate ran mostly on the premise that there wasn&#39;t any appreciable difference between the two "established" candidates. This message apparently caught on, mostly with moderate/liberal voters. They voted for the third party candidate - not because they thought he had a chance, but as a symbolic "other" vote to protest the mediocrity of the other two candidates.

Result: Bad, bad president. Two wars, economy in the shitter... hated by most of the world. I sometimes wonder if anyone who voted for Ralph Nader still believes there was essentially no difference between Bush and Gore.

Just a few votes would have changed all that. Voter apathy fucked us. When intelligent people stay at home (is this you?), that means the dumbasses pick our leaders (eg: USA).

There&#39;s always a difference between candidates.

edit/ so I guess I get a little cranky when someone who doesn&#39;t vote starts a thread like this. ;)
Ralph Nader was an interesting one, because he has always remained passionate about fixing problems in society - he never "grew up" and became a "realist".

I was hardly his fault that Gore lost the election (what am I saying? He won&#33;). If a few more people actually gave a shit about the society they live in, they would have got out and voted and the result would be different.

Minor political parties are important. They stir up shit (whether it&#39;s the major parties dumping on them, or them attacking their policies) and open discussion is imortant when the fate of your country is at stake.

I&#39;d certainly support more referendums.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@30 December 2003 - 00:17
I was hardly his fault that Gore lost the election (what am I saying? He won&#33;). If a few more people actually gave a shit about the society they live in, they would have got out and voted and the result would be different.

Minor political parties are important. They stir up shit (whether it&#39;s the major parties dumping on them, or them attacking their policies) and open discussion is imortant when the fate of your country is at stake.

I&#39;d certainly support more referendums.
You are wrong about the election-Gore lost.

Google this: Electoral College

I will refrain from a recitation of Democrat shenanigans which took place in the 2000 Presidential election.

As for referendums, I say, YES&#33;

People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.

I think a few miscast votes might have the effect of enlightening the hoi polloi. If more people paid close attention to what is being done "in their best interest" by the politicians they do/don&#39;t vote for, they would be sickened unto becoming educated about exactly what it is they are doing when they do/don&#39;t enter a polling place.

I used to think voter apathy was a bad thing; now I think we need a whole lot more/less of it. :)

And no, that last wasn&#39;t a mis-guided attempt to be funny. I mean it most sincerely. ;)

[ilw]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 05:00
As for referendums, I say, YES&#33;

People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.
I don&#39;t really like that sentiment, I much prefer having someone in particular to blame. :-" But in many ways you don&#39;t actually get what you deserve, its like splitting a bill at a restaurant.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw+30 December 2003 - 09:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 30 December 2003 - 09:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 December 2003 - 05:00
As for referendums, I say, YES&#33;

People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.
I don&#39;t really like that sentiment, I much prefer having someone in particular to blame. :-" But in many ways you don&#39;t actually get what you deserve, its like splitting a bill at a restaurant.[/b][/quote]
Just so, but I think what happened in California is a terrific example in illustration of my point:

The people (all of them) who cast votes in the recall will see the results of their having done so in relatively short order, and their motivations for rising from the old easy-chair to vote will be vindicated (or not).

There will actually be (for the first time in many of their lives) a recognizable cause and effect anent the vote cast.

I do think referendums have a place in the process these days.

Going back to Roe v. Wade, and continuing up to recent federal and state Supreme Court votes on gay marriage, sodomy, the Ten Commandments, etc., the courts have insisted on finding "rights" that don&#39;t exist in the constitution, and which no reading of the document, however loose, can reveal.

The courts have become a willing tool for lobbies which cannot achieve their ends through public referendum, and this will continue until the people decide to impeach these non-constructionist assholes.

State&#39;s Rights have taken a terrific hit in the last 40 years or so, and the people are becoming restless. ;)

BTW-

If you vote ignorantly, and don&#39;t get what you want, you are indeed getting what you deserve.

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by Alex H+30 December 2003 - 04:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H &#064; 30 December 2003 - 04:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Minor political parties are important. They stir up shit...[/b]
Agreed. I just wish the "minor third party" could be some right-wing nut job and siphon votes from the republicans for a change. ;)

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 December 2003 - 06:00
People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.
[/quote]
I remember saying that alot during the Reagan era. His "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" slogan - which was aimed at white, middle-class America - sealed his re-election. A very ugly period IMO.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Alex H+29 December 2003 - 20:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 29 December 2003 - 20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sid Hartha@29 December 2003 - 22:48
a minor third party candidate ran mostly on the premise that there wasn&#39;t any appreciable difference between the two "established" candidates. This message apparently caught on, mostly with moderate/liberal voters. They voted for the third party candidate - not because they thought he had a chance, but as a symbolic "other" vote to protest the mediocrity of the other two candidates.

Result: Bad, bad president. Two wars, economy in the shitter... hated by most of the world.&nbsp; I sometimes wonder if anyone who voted for Ralph Nader still believes there was essentially no difference between Bush and Gore.
I was hardly his fault that Gore lost the election (what am I saying? He won&#33;). [/b][/quote]
agreed. it is not ralph nader&#39;s fault that george w. bush is the president now. it&#39;s the fault of the bipartisan establishment, that they couldn&#39;t put up two candidates worth getting excited about. while GWB may have run this country off the rails, and al gore may not have ended up doing that if he had won... nader was perfectly accurate in claiming that bush and gore were both running on 110% status quo platforms. i don&#39;t think anybody could have predicted that bush&#39;s administration was going to turn out like this, based on his election campaign.

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@30 December 2003 - 16:15
i don&#39;t think anybody could have predicted that bush&#39;s administration was going to turn out like this, based on his election campaign.
I beg to differ. Bush/Cheney were way scary during the campaign. Anyone who panders to the religious right-wing is bad news, IMO.

Despite all his shortcomings, Gore didn&#39;t go there.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 07:32
Going back to Roe v. Wade, and continuing up to recent federal and state Supreme Court votes on gay marriage, sodomy, the Ten Commandments, etc., the courts have insisted on finding "rights" that don&#39;t exist in the constitution, and which no reading of the document, however loose, can reveal.
whoa, hold up a sec. the Constitution is not a prescription for limits on individual rights. it&#39;s not the end of an individual&#39;s rights, it&#39;s the beginning.

if by mentioning the Ten Commandments, you&#39;re referring to that judge from Alabama who erected a religious monument in the middle of his court house, he appealed to the Supreme Court. he wants to take the case to Supreme Court, but the court refuses to hear the appeal-- that is not a vote or a verdict on the issue, it&#39;s... well... a refusal to hear the appeal. &#39;course, there are prolly plenty of other "Ten Commandments" cases, so maybe you&#39;re referring to sumfin&#39; else. ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+30 December 2003 - 12:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 30 December 2003 - 12:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 December 2003 - 07:32
Going back to Roe v. Wade, and continuing up to recent federal and state Supreme Court votes on gay marriage, sodomy, the Ten Commandments, etc., the courts have insisted on finding "rights" that don&#39;t exist in the constitution, and which no reading of the document, however loose, can reveal.
whoa, hold up a sec. the Constitution is not a prescription for limits on individual rights. it&#39;s not the end of an individual&#39;s rights, it&#39;s the beginning.

if by mentioning the Ten Commandments, you&#39;re referring to that judge from Alabama who erected a religious monument in the middle of his court house, he appealed to the Supreme Court. he wants to take the case to Supreme Court, but the court refuses to hear the appeal-- that is not a vote or a verdict on the issue, it&#39;s... well... a refusal to hear the appeal. &#39;course, there are prolly plenty of other "Ten Commandments" cases, so maybe you&#39;re referring to sumfin&#39; else. ;)[/b][/quote]
Let&#39;s get this VERY straight, 3RA1N1AC-

The Constitution is neither the beginning nor the end of individual rights&#33;

It is merely a document enumerating what rights accrue to individuals, and which are the province of the state or federal government.

It is not a document to be modified on the whim of a minority group or lobby; it is not oriented to "niche" case law.

Neither is there any provision for the separation of Church and State as per the current "mis-understanding" of the document.

The theory of separation was developed by Jefferson, but is not, and never has been, a part of the Constitution.

The Constitution provides for equal recogniton of different religions, not the abolition of public (and now, private) displays of religious observation, be they Christian or otherwise.

The federal Court is usurping the authority of State Courts, and State Courts are doing the same to state legislatures, who are in turn doing it to the people.

If you can&#39;t be bothered to read and understand the document, don&#39;t bother to expound on it, and don&#39;t assume what you read elsewhere constitutes the whole story.

[3RA1N1AC]

i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."

edit: you&#39;ve brought up a whole other thread that has little or nothing to do with my post-- i said that, if you&#39;re referring to that judge from Alabama, Supreme Court didn&#39;t hear that case. if you weren&#39;t referring to that case, then my mistake. i didn&#39;t mean to provoke a whole gasket-blown rant about how much of a moron you think i am, because of a previous thread.

back to the bit that was actually on-topic. okay, it&#39;s the beginning of the enumeration of individual freedoms. although i would say that without a formal contract between the citizens and their government, these freedoms are not a given. it&#39;s the legal starting point for individual rights in America.

my intention is not to have a contest to see who&#39;s got a superior intellect based on their adherence to technical clarity. my intention is to get at the essence of the argument, and the essence of yours appears to be:
1) the Supreme Court has no authority to find rights that are not listed in the Constitution, especially not rights for minorities
2) you understand the Constitution and are qualified to speak about it, while i, all the other illiterate philistines, and the Supreme Court are not
3) minorities are bad and they want to twist the Constitution to validate their perversion

is it "merely" a basic enumeration of individual rights, or is it the final word to which you refer minorities and tell them "well, that freedom isn&#39;t listed in the Constitution, so you don&#39;t receive it"?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@30 December 2003 - 14:48
i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."
If you say so.

Read the document; until then, keep your powder dry. ;)

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4+30 December 2003 - 11:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 30 December 2003 - 11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@30 December 2003 - 14:48
i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."
If you say so.

Read the document; until then, keep your powder dry. ;) [/b][/quote]
awright, i&#39;ve read it straight through for the fourth time. it had been a little while since i&#39;d read it, actually. my major concentration of study was english & american literature, not american law. ;)

does that put to rest any doubt in your mind that i&#39;ve read & understood it at least once? i still don&#39;t find your view of it any more correct than that of the Supreme Court, though, incredible as that might sound.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+30 December 2003 - 16:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 30 December 2003 - 16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 11:37
<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@30 December 2003 - 14:48
i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."
If you say so.

Read the document; until then, keep your powder dry. ;)
awright, i&#39;ve read it straight through for the fourth time. it had been a little while since i&#39;d read it, actually. my major concentration of study was english & american literature, not american law. ;)

does that put to rest any doubt in your mind that i&#39;ve read & understood it at least once? i still don&#39;t find your view of it any more correct than that of the Supreme Court, though, incredible as that might sound.[/b][/quote]
I take it you are not at all sold on the idea of original intent, then?

Is this urge to be, as they say, "progressive" so overpowering that one cannot look upon a document such as the American Constitution (a document which, in times fairly recent, has been called, "nearly perfect") without being beset by the urge to be (re-) creative?

Amendments, while never lightly contemplated, are now deemed insufficient to address current issues; the method du jour is to "read between the lines" of the World&#39;s most perfect document in order to accomodate the lobby of the moment.

I am not a strict constructionist; however, the Supreme Court is not possessed of Picasso&#39;s ability.

They are making a mockery of our Constitution.

I thank you for reading it, anyway.

[masta.z]

Originally posted by clocker+28 December 2003 - 04:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 December 2003 - 04:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@27 December 2003 - 19:15
Did you know that over 50% of people are below average intelligence
How can this be?
Wouldn&#39;t this fact lower the "average" in "average intelligence"? [/b][/quote]
90, 50, 50 - avg = 63.3, more than 50% below the average...


(apology&#39;s if anyone already answered this... i never read the whole thing)