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

Quote:

---

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.   

---

Thats really not necessarily true, I'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'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't have enough voting power to change things, therefore giving those in power free rein to abuse them.

Quote:

---

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'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're inherently happier?

Quote:

---

Also, like i ws saying, we don'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't really an arbitrary number.

Quote:

---

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'm guessing thats probably not what you meant.

Quote:

---

so I guess I get a little cranky when someone who doesn't vote starts a thread like this. ;)

---

np :lol: :P

I really hope you're not right.

Quote:

---

"Cakes and Circus'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's not what you were suggesting)

Quote:

---

..will probably not keep their manifesto promises..

---

I'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'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.

Quote:

---

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'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's just empty rhetorics but still votes are given them because they are noticed.

To make matters worse, in my country, I sometimes can'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'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'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'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't work.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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'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're inherently happier?

---

Most countries are way to big for a full democracy, and i don't know if individuals have ienough time for that, but that would be ideal :)

Quote:

---

I really hope you're not right.

Quote:

---

"Cakes and Circus's"......

---

---

California governor is a good example isn't it? He'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'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.

Quote:

---

I'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'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).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chame1eon@29 December 2003 - 22:51
Most countries are way to big for a full democracy, and i don'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.

I agree, but i think we could come closer

Quote:

---

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'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's always a difference between candidates.

edit/ so I guess I get a little cranky when someone who doesn'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!). 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'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'd certainly support more referendums.

Quote:

---

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!). 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'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'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!

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't vote for, they would be sickened unto becoming educated about exactly what it is they are doing when they do/don'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't a mis-guided attempt to be funny. I mean it most sincerely. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 05:00
As for referendums, I say, YES!

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

---

I don't really like that sentiment, I much prefer having someone in particular to blame. :-" But in many ways you don't actually get what you deserve, its like splitting a bill at a restaurant.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

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.

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"?

Quote:

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 11:37
<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC

---

Quote:

---

@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.

Quote:

---

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)