Limited Democracy

[Snorri1234]

for what its worth....arguments about giving voting out based on intelligence measured by academic achievement are some of the least palatable arguments you could make about anything to my tastes. And im usually pretty open to a number of ideas.

Agreed. Money issues aside education doesn't "prove" that you're smart anyways. Besides, intelligence shouldn't be the issue. As I said, the only way I can see limited democracy working is if you asked someone to list a few things of substance about the candidate you're voting for. It weeds out the "he's a devout Christian" or "she's a woman" or "pork chop sandwiches, lol" crowd but still leaves everyone the possibility of voting (assuming they get their act together).

This is the only thing I can see working and still being a bit fair.

[Colossus]

Okay, Ambrose, I would ask 2 questions of you and of everyone else that has commented on this thread....

Is it the responsibility of a voter to vote for the candidate that they feel will be best for the nation as a whole? (please offer reasons for your answer)

What does 'best for the nation as a whole' mean?


I would say it is not the responsibility of the voter to consider the best interests of the nation as a whole, but rather to consider a balance between national and local interests. The American system of government was not set up to be the monolithic centralized monstrosity that it has become. The United States of America are built around a very important balance between federal, state, and local power. As a voter, one of the most important things to me is that federal government officials have a recognition that the national interest does not come before the interests of the individual states. Similarly, the interests of the state do not come before the interests of my city. That's the way the system works (or is supposed to work). I have a major problem with the idea of considering what's 'best for the nation' or 'best for society'. There is not one set of things that is best for the nation or best for society. Imagining that there is some sort of blueprint for the perfect society which should form the foundation of the voters' decision-making process is to completely ignore the wealth of diversity in our society with respect to personal morals, priorities, and values.

The beauty of our society is that we have the freedom to do as we choose.

That would not change under my proposed society.

Oh, yes it would. Your system, or any system that restricts who gets to vote (and age requirements don't count because everyone ages whether they want to or not) inherently removes the freedom to choose to do as we want. You are saying that people would still be perfectly free to not join the military as long as they are willing to exchange that choice for their right to any say in the future of their society. I expect you're smart enough to realize, Ambrose, that this is not freedom.

It seems to me that anyone who thinks that certain folks shouldn't be allowed to vote because they aren't voting for the right reasons has an over-inflated opinion of his own judgment. Who are you to say that someone else's motives for voting the way that they do are wrong?

Who are you to say that everyone should have the right to vote? My opinion is simply this, and I think it's very supportable: a voting body which earns the right to vote through difficult service to society is more likely to cast that vote for the betterment of society.

The idea that everyone should have a right to vote is based on the inherent idea that the founding fathers laid out in the Declaration of Independence, Ambrose...'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' It has taken over 200 years for this noble statement of purpose which was the foundation of our nation to finally approach that to which it aspires. American society right now is closer to equality than it has ever been. We have a long way to go toward achieving real equality, but the march toward a more equal society has largely centered around everyone having a say in the way the nation, the state, the city, the town is run. Any system which limits that by establishing a set of requirements for the right to vote inherently deprives the citizenry of their unalienable right to liberty. Are you a proponent of eugenics Ambrose? Basically what you are proposing is a eugenics approach toward liberty rather than toward life. It's just as much a violation of the foundations of our society as eugenics is.

[got tonkaed]

to ambrose...you could make the argument that its not of course, but to do so violates some rather basic assumptions that we have about the entire political system and some core american values. Im not saying you cant do it, simply that its not something that fits very well within the context of how we concieve of politics and rights established by it.

To colossus: as fun as it was to revel in the eugenics applied, ill answer some questions to be contrarian.

As someone who can at times be a negative nancy about the current socioeconomic climate and the political contexts as a result, i will favor the nation over the states. I realize this is not the same intent that the framers of the constitution had, though i question had they created a constitution for the best of possible systems in the 21st century what changes (im sure there would be some) might have been made. Note, im not strongly against states rights in any way, and in as far as they are possible id be happy to side in that camp. However i feel as levels of soverignty diminish during processes that reduce the importance of locality, there can either be a backlash race to the most basic forms of local authority, or a moving upward to recollectivize. Being a collectivist jerkface, i would choose the latter. Thats quite tangential however as you can see.

Whats best for the nation is probably too complicated of a question for me to respond to in any way thats redeemable.

[Colossus]

GT, I almost always enjoy your posts, but here you have not answered the first question, so I'm curious for you to clarify a little bit. Do you believe that it is the responsibility of the voter to consider the good of the nation as the most important aspect of choosing whom to vote for?

[got tonkaed]

GT, I almost always enjoy your posts, but here you have not answered the first question, so I'm curious for you to clarify a little bit. Do you believe that it is the responsibility of the voter to consider the good of the nation as the most important aspect of choosing whom to vote for?

i suppose im a bit too much of a cynic to believe that to be true. I think voters should vote their interests and wherever that intersects into state, local and national interests the chips sort of fall where they may. (at least in practice)

in theory i think the nation would be better served if people were capable of voting outside of their immediate interests, but i struggle to believe that people are capable of divorcing themselves from social issues.

I think in a way your asking for too much...id simply ask for informed voters about the issues and the candidates, and would assume as a result we would sort things out much better assuming we could get large enough numbers of the population.

[Colossus]

To be clear, I completely agree with you. I think that changing the system in ways that allow voters to be better informed would make a much better impact than any limitations on who gets to vote. There are lots of good ways to do this.

[got tonkaed]

To be clear, I completely agree with you. I think that changing the system in ways that allow voters to be better informed would make a much better impact than any limitations on who gets to vote. There are lots of good ways to do this.

I actually think one of the things that would probably help that doesnt get talked about as much as it could would be the role that media is playing in all of these things. At times i question during the current election, despite the massive coverage if it is too much infotainment and not enough information.

As important as it is for states to have their own primaries and all of those things, it seems like the innudation with speeches and consistency of granting too much spotlight on speculation takes a whole lot away from some of the incredible potential networks could have in getting out stances on things but bringing in people who are actually relavant.

[Colossus]

Totally. I think the biggest problems with elections in this country are related to media. Not even necessarily the news media, but media in general. The things I would change in order to promote a return to informed voting:

First, no more fund-raisers. All candidates get a set amount of money from the federal government. This is a small amount of money that would provide for travel and speaking engagements only.

No advertising, period. The only thing that all candidates would be permitted to offer would be a website with their views on the issues and ONE paper mailing regarding their stances on the issues mailed to every address in the country. Mailing costs would be absorbed by the US postal service.

No special interest endorsements in the media. If unions or certain voter groups want to decide who they are going to endorse, fine, but they don't get to put commercials on TV or adds on the radio. No phone calls either.

I would also change the primary to a national primary day so that all states have equal opportunity to determine the nominees for the general election. Leading up to the primary day would be a series of nationally televised debates in various places around the nation in which each candidate gets equal time to answer every question asked. Video and transcripts of these debates would be made available online.

I think these changes would greatly aid the election process because it would force the voter to choose in one of two ways: be informed on the issues or vote for somebody because of how they look. I think most voters would choose the former rather than the latter.

[Frigidus]

Is it the responsibility of a voter to vote for the candidate that they feel will be best for the nation as a whole? (please offer reasons for your answer)

What does 'best for the nation as a whole' mean?

True, individual and national well-being do not always coincide (heck, more often than not they don't. That said, there is a huge difference between voting for someone who's platform parallels your values and voting for someone based on their race, religion, gender, etc. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are a lot of people that aren't that shallow. But I lost faith in a good portion of America a long time ago. To be more direct, I don't feel people should do something that's good for the nation. I'd hope, though, that they'd do something that's at the very least good for themselves.

[muy_thaiguy]

to ambrose...you could make the argument that its not of course, but to do so violates some rather basic assumptions that we have about the entire political system and some core american values. Im not saying you cant do it, simply that its not something that fits very well within the context of how we concieve of politics and rights established by it.

To colossus: as fun as it was to revel in the eugenics applied, ill answer some questions to be contrarian.

As someone who can at times be a negative nancy about the current socioeconomic climate and the political contexts as a result, i will favor the nation over the states. I realize this is not the same intent that the framers of the constitution had, though i question had they created a constitution for the best of possible systems in the 21st century what changes (im sure there would be some) might have been made. Note, im not strongly against states rights in any way, and in as far as they are possible id be happy to side in that camp. However i feel as levels of soverignty diminish during processes that reduce the importance of locality, there can either be a backlash race to the most basic forms of local authority, or a moving upward to recollectivize. Being a collectivist jerkface, i would choose the latter. Thats quite tangential however as you can see.

Whats best for the nation is probably too complicated of a question for me to respond to in any way thats redeemable.

Well, here goes another political debate. Can't be helped I guess.

GT, the problem with having such a strong central government is that not only does it take away state's rights (which you really don't seem to mind all that much for some reason), but it also takes away rights from the individual and has a tendency to think that what is good for one state, is good for all states, which becomes a major problem. The reason why it takes away an individual's rights is because those rights stem from local and state governments. And having such a strong central government, well, if you lived in say, Texas or Nevada, or even Hawaii, you wouldn't have much say at all in what happens in your neck of the woods. In other words, we would be pretty much right back where we started in 1776. Bowing down to a government half-way across the world without much say in what goes on in your own hometown, let alone your state. The framers of the constitution knew that the country was growing, knew it would continue to do so. That is why they set up the Federal government, which splits the powers between the states and the national government. Whether or not they knew it would get this big is debatable, but frankly, I think that this way, we actually DO have a say in what goes on in our own states and communities. You see GT, it may seem like a good idea to only look at the big picture, but not in this case. It's the small towns, communities, and states with all of their diversities that makes the US the US, not a centralized government that dictates how people should live according to one person or a few, but each and every state, and within those, towns, counties, cities, etc. How would you like it if a person from say, Arkansas, became "President" and made everyone live like they do there? Don't think so. And please don't bring Canada, the UK, or other such countries, because for one, they are much smaller in not only size, but also population, so of course it is going to work, but such a government here would end up being more along the lines of that of the USSR or China. For one, they were/are more similar in size and population than any of the European countries that people often try to compare the US to. Also, the range of different communities and variances would also be more similar, and yet, look how they turned out. Ruled by a few elites, people's lives dictated by someone hundreds of miles away, and the people end up in shambles. Russia is still recovering from the days of the USSR, and China, while it has quite a large "middle-class," in comparison to how many are still living in the same squalid conditions, well, it doesn't work.

[greenoaks]

The things I would change in order to promote a return to informed voting:
No advertising, period. The only thing that all candidates would be permitted to offer would be a website with their views on the issues and ONE paper mailing regarding their stances on the issues mailed to every address in the country. Mailing costs would be absorbed by the US postal service.

No special interest endorsements in the media. If unions or certain voter groups want to decide who they are going to endorse, fine, but they don't get to put commercials on TV or adds on the radio. No phone calls either.

am i reading this right, that if someone had an opinion on a candidate they would not be able to ring and tell you, they could not mail it to you, they could not take out an ad in the paper or go on a talk show and declare it.

so you would ban the right to free speech.

[Colossus]

First off, I think mtg is right on.

am i reading this right, that if someone had an opinion on a candidate they would not be able to ring and tell you, they could not mail it to you, they could not take out an ad in the paper or go on a talk show and declare it.

so you would ban the right to free speech.

Of course not, the question of special interest groups advertising is not so much a question of free speech, in my opinion, it's one of propaganda. It seems to me that individuals should be perfectly free to support whomever they choose and to publicize that support if they want to, so long as it is clear that the advertisement is coming from them, but the right to free speech doesn't apply to group propaganda in my opinion. You bring up a good point though. This is a very touchy area that would require some heavy consideration and public debate. But the 'I am Jack-off Presidential Candidate and I approve this message' shit would stop.

Still, so as not to wander too far off-track here, greenoaks, what do you think of the 'limited democracy' (fascism) idea?

[Frigidus]

The things I would change in order to promote a return to informed voting:
No advertising, period. The only thing that all candidates would be permitted to offer would be a website with their views on the issues and ONE paper mailing regarding their stances on the issues mailed to every address in the country. Mailing costs would be absorbed by the US postal service.

No special interest endorsements in the media. If unions or certain voter groups want to decide who they are going to endorse, fine, but they don't get to put commercials on TV or adds on the radio. No phone calls either.

am i reading this right, that if someone had an opinion on a candidate they would not be able to ring and tell you, they could not mail it to you, they could not take out an ad in the paper or go on a talk show and declare it.

so you would ban the right to free speech.

He does touch on an important subject (although as you said his reaction would be a limitation of rights). Namely, special interest groups are a cancer, the disgusting tumor on the butt of America. They discourage thought and encourage voting as one body for one reason. If that wasn't bad enough they send their soulless lobbyists to corrupt otherwise fair legislature and slant it in their favor. They latch they're hooked claws into the meaty flanks of the two parties and they pull and pull and pull until there is a gulf of despair between them filled to the brim with discarded centrists. The lobbyists caw in jovial triumph as they make sizable donations to candidates who "happen" to hold their interests near and dear.

Anyways, my point is that special interest groups are evil. Not sure what you can do about that. Maybe a cream?

[greenoaks]

as i posted earlier i am dead-set against a limited democracy based on military service.

i do not believe that military personnel enlist for the good of their country but because they have very few other options available to them or to reduce their college fees or to spite/follow their father or or or.

i would argue that those who volunteer to save/protect the local environment, the homeless, the poor, battered wives, abused children, etc are thinking just as much about their nation as military personnel so to refuse them a right to vote would belittle their choice in how they are making their nation a better place to live.

england had a variation of what has been proposed. all people have a vote but those of 'noble' birth may also sit in the house of lords. (a pom will need to jump in here and fill us all in on how well that works.) in effect 'nobility' had the ability to veto what the commoners wanted.

right now the united nations is a limited democracy in that only nations deemed fit to be a member get a seat and a vote. all other nations are at their mercy. they also have the house of lords thing going with the likes of russia and the us having the right to veto what the rest of the un wants. so it is a multi layered limited democracy.

and we all know how ineffective that usually is.

[mandalorian2298]

Ambrose, there is a taxi here waiting for you.
Its heading for Berlin, 1933 i believe.
Hop in-you'll fit right in.

YOU FOOL_LIMITED DEMOCRACY IS FASCISM.


Get a grip.

Actualy, Nacism was product of a democracy. So was Fascism. I apologize for ruining your bumper sticker of an oppinion with those nasty facts.

Back to the subject. In all Democratic societies the right to vote is denied to some people whether because of their age, psychical illnes or criminal record. Thus, it is pretty dumb to scream against limited democracy while defending any of the existing democracies (which are, in fact, all limited). The question is not wherther to limit the right to vote, but rather: How do we decide who deserves the right to vote, without commiting injustice against individuals or groups?

In my oppinion the best way to accomplish this would be by giving the right to vote only to those individuals who pass a two part written test. Every citizen, regardless of his/her gender, race, social standing or any othe criterium should be given the right to vote on the elections if and only if the pass this test.

First part would be the IQ test. Right to vote should only be awarded to a person who's IQ is 100 (avarage) or higher. Intelligence is an important part of making a good decision.

Second part would test the potential voter's awareness of the affairs of the state. For the test to unbiased, it would have to include only questions about objective facts (the state of the national treasury, possible national debts, current spendings in the various areas, a rough overview of important statistical data concerning (among other things) literacy, employment, avarage wage, crime rates etc.). All this data would have to be publicized by the goverment at least 3 months before the pre-election test, to give all the citizens a chance to prepare themselves for the test. This test would ensure that all the voters are aware of the current state their country is in, which should give them at least a general idea about the efficency of the current goverment. Also, this would ensure that they have a better perspective on the pre-election promises the candidates are making. The only way to make a good decision is by basing it on facts.

[MeDeFe]

Problem: Just because someone can learn the answers to some questions in a test does not mean this person will stay up to date on political topics in the future.

[mandalorian2298]

Problem: Just because someone can learn the answers to some questions in a test does not mean this person will stay up to date on political topics in the future.

Of course, you are right. I didn't specify that passing the tests would only give you the right to vote on the next elections. My bad, I thought that it would be obvious.

[greenoaks]

you test would be great if we lived in a democracy but we don't. we live in republics where we select someone to represent us. all we need to believe is the person we are selecting will understand those things, whatever those things are. so your test should only apply to candidates and the results published.

[Colossus]

Now, that's not a bad idea. Some kind of civics qualification for all candidates would be a great idea, I think. Establishing requirements for who gets to run is a way better idea than restricting who gets to vote.

[muy_thaiguy]

Now, that's not a bad idea. Some kind of civics qualification for all candidates would be a great idea, I think. Establishing requirements for who gets to run is a way better idea than restricting who gets to vote.

That settles it, I'm running for Presidency...

















in 17 years.

[got tonkaed]

Now, that's not a bad idea. Some kind of civics qualification for all candidates would be a great idea, I think. Establishing requirements for who gets to run is a way better idea than restricting who gets to vote.

That settles it, I'm running for Presidency...

in 17 years.

hard luck cause i think im running in that election, and i think i have all kinds of star appeal so i might be tough to beat.

ill get to your long post later when i develop an interesting idea and am more up to it.

[Neoteny]

Now, that's not a bad idea. Some kind of civics qualification for all candidates would be a great idea, I think. Establishing requirements for who gets to run is a way better idea than restricting who gets to vote.

That settles it, I'm running for Presidency...

in 17 years.

hard luck cause i think im running in that election, and i think i have all kinds of star appeal so i might be tough to beat.

ill get to your long post later when i develop an interesting idea and am more up to it.

Looks like the two of you are going to have a sad 2024...

[muy_thaiguy]

Now, that's not a bad idea. Some kind of civics qualification for all candidates would be a great idea, I think. Establishing requirements for who gets to run is a way better idea than restricting who gets to vote.

That settles it, I'm running for Presidency...

in 17 years.

hard luck cause i think im running in that election, and i think i have all kinds of star appeal so i might be tough to beat.

ill get to your long post later when i develop an interesting idea and am more up to it.

Looks like the two of you are going to have a sad 2024...

Nah, I'll make it look like GT is the next Ron Paul so that all the truthers will back him up, driving away any support that he might get from rational people (for the most part anyways).

[Napoleon Ier]

Now, that's not a bad idea. Some kind of civics qualification for all candidates would be a great idea, I think. Establishing requirements for who gets to run is a way better idea than restricting who gets to vote.

That settles it, I'm running for Presidency...

in 17 years.

hard luck cause i think im running in that election, and i think i have all kinds of star appeal so i might be tough to beat.

ill get to your long post later when i develop an interesting idea and am more up to it.

Looks like the two of you are going to have a sad 2024...

Nah, I'll make it look like GT is the next Ron Paul so that all the truthers will back him up, driving away any support that he might get from rational people (for the most part anyways).

What's wrong with Ron Paul though? There's stuff wrong with the reasons for which people like xtra support him, but some of his ideas are genuinely good.

[muy_thaiguy]

Napoleon, the whole point IS to get people like xtra and Dekloran to back GT.