Voting

[JonnyBGood]

Now personally I despise simple-minded systems of voting such as, no offence, operate in the UK, ie 'first past the pole'. The point of having a system which only represents the barest majority of the population and claims to be 'just' escapes me completely. Now this may be the result of some patriotic bias but I would prefer a proportional representation system of voting, which generally gives a far more equal voice to all sections of society and not just the 51% you managed to convince that you can run the country in the best manner possible.

Basically you write, in Ireland at least, eleven, or less, candidates for election. When all the votes are counted either whoever got in, and had surplus votes, or the candidate with the lowest number of votes if no-one is elected gets their votes distributed. Whilst this may not sound like much initially if you consider it with some modicum of thought you'll find it actually does offer a far more egalitarian form of voting

On a slightly different angle I find the entire concept of letting everyone vote slightly bizzare (no oh my god you communist!!! replies here please). Surely if we can acknowledge the existence of certain immutable rights then anyone who cannot understand these does not have the right to vote. Why, after all, should those who do not understand basic theories of freedom, equality and liberty be allowed to decide the future of others? Might it not be better if, before one can vote, a basic test of one's capacity to understand the issues at hand is shown? Of course this will only work with a fixed constitution, which has certain areas which are unchangeable.

By the same logic, if we're only going to allow "qualified" citizens to vote, we should take equal measures to ensure that only the best are allowed to run for office, and not just the person who is best able to manipulate the largest number of people at election time. Therefore I also propose that only those who show themselves capable of thinking in a rational fashion, independent of whatever is the current fashionable idea, should be allowed to be elected. Just as we don't let insane people run the country, those who are unable, through no fault of their own merely unable, to contribute to the nation, in a fashion beneficial to themselves and others, should not be allowed to hinder and diminish growth of all forms.

Lastly I would like to propose that an option be added to all voting, this of course only matters in elections as the preceding cases were, which is a vote of no choice, ie none of the candidates meet requirements by your opinion. If over 50% of votes select this option the election is postponed for an additional period, with new candidates accepted.

Clearly these measures would need additional thought, and there are a huge range of issues I didn't consider. Thus I would encourage you to discuss the topic in any way which is conducive to a slightly higher degree of enlightenment!

[Deathjam]

u need more in ur life mate

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
'first past the pole'.

Whilst the system for voting MPs is first past the pole, the power of any given MP pales in comparison with the power of a political party, and voting for a ruling party is done by proportional representation.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Whilst the system for voting MPs is first past the pole, the power of any given MP pales in comparison with the power of a political party, and voting for a ruling party is done by proportional representation.

That's nice but I was just using the example of the UK to inform people as to what I was talking about.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
That's nice but I was just using the example of the UK to inform people as to what I was talking about.

Use a better example then. And don't imply, when making the example, that it's a SHOCKING THING THAT WILL KILL US ALL. Or the like.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Use a better example then. And don't imply, when making the example, that it's a SHOCKING THING THAT WILL KILL US ALL. Or the like.

I was making a point that having that system of voting leaves the nation open to certain possibilities that are not contributive to a better system of government. And I didn't imply, you inferred. Not my fault.

[Nodrog]

The problem isnt that the voters arent 'qualified', its that they dont have the right to excersise the power which they currently wield. The fundamental problem in modern democracies/republics is that people have somehow got into their heads the idea that they somehow have the 'right' to vote on issues that affect the private lives of other people. In truth, they dont - there is no moral difference between performing an action yourself, and you electing someone to perform it for you. If you do not have the right to personally perform an action against another person, then the government has no right to perform it on your behalf. Transference of rights and responsibilities cannot create new ones any more than giving someone a bar of chocolate can make it bigger.

People want the benefits of representitive democracy without being prepared to accept the vast amount of responsibility that comes with it. When you vote for a candidate, you are completely responsible for every single action he performs while in power. By giving someone your sanction to govern, you are accepting full responsibility for all of the actions which he is going to perform. Delegation of responsibility does not remove fault, or blame. You cannot willingly allow someone else to perform actions on your behalf, and then cowardly deny the responsibility for his actions when you are asked to face up to it. To claim that you can do so is equivalent to claiming a Mafia boss is relieved of blame if he pays a gangster to murder someone on his behalf. Ignorance is no excuse either - if you do not trust someone to safely wield the power which you are voting to give them, then you have no right to vote for them. If there is no candidate who can you can fully trust, then you do not vote - voting is not a duty, or a task which you are 'obliged' to perform. If you do not feel you can do it consciousentiously, then it is proper to refrain from carrying it out. All too often you hear morons saying things like "I have the right to vote", or "If you dont vote you have no right to complain", when they are too stupid/lazy/both to understand what it is that they are really saying.

This is the fundamental problem within todays society - not the method used to elect the representitives, or the choice of representitives on offer - but the power which they are sanctioned to wield, and the refusal of the electorate to accept personal responsibility for their actions. Within todays society, the government is pretty much capable of doing anything it likes, as long as the majority doesnt object too strongly to it. Most people dont seem to understand that when they vote at present times, they are effectively saying to their candidate "Here you go, do anything you like! I trust you enough to wield complete power over the populace, now dont you be a naughty boy and abuse it!". In a nutshell, they are giving them unlimited permission to do whatever it is that they feel like. As a result of this, the government is able to manipulate this power to ensure that they can stay in power for even longer. A government which is answerable mainly to the majority of people will sooner or later become purely populist - if you can 'bribe' the majority into voting for you, it doesnt really matter about the minority - they dont have enough numbers to vote you out. As evidence of this, look at the bribes currently offered to the majority that are funded by the ridiculous levels of taxation enacted on the impotent minority, or how the rights of people to use recreational drugs are tossed aside through fear of offending the majority, who would turn against the politician who dared to speak up regarding them and throw him out of power. If you ask the average person on the street, he will tell that the "politicians suck", or that "the government is wack". What he forgets to mention is that he is one of the ones who allowed them to get into this position, and it is his continual willingness to give them his sanction of wielding excess amounts of power than allows them to continue on in their present state. As long as the government has the ability to wield the power they currently have, nothing will change - how can change be possible within the current climate?

In conclusion, it doesnt make the slightest bit of difference what method you use to elect candidates - as long as the candidates have the power to do whatever they want, the problems will continue in exactly the same manner. It is pure idealism to believe that simply changing the method used to elect politicians will have any difference whatsoever, when you are neglecting the two crucial problems - the gross amounts of power that they wield, and the refusal of the electorate to take responsibility for their actions. Any attempt at change without primarilly targetting those two problems is akin to putting a band-aid on an axe wound.


[edit - just reread that and realised its an incoherant mess, I need sleep :/]

[W]

The very concept of voting in itself is flawed. It draws it's justification from the idea of an utilitarian calculus, and that a government should do what would cause least displeasure to the population, which is simplified down to "if we do what the largest group wants, the remainder complaining will be smallest possible", disregarding that someone may value a war much more negatively than, say, a 10% tax increase, and may complain louder.

Another problem is that of someones right to deside over someone else solely based on numeric superiority. If we're three people on a lifeboat, and me and another guy vote to throw you overboard to save food and water, do we really have that right, simply because we're twice as many?

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
On a slightly different angle I find the entire concept of letting everyone vote slightly bizzare (no oh my god you communist!!! replies here please). Surely if we can acknowledge the existence of certain immutable rights then anyone who cannot understand these does not have the right to vote. Why, after all, should those who do not understand basic theories of freedom, equality and liberty be allowed to decide the future of others? Might it not be better if, before one can vote, a basic test of one's capacity to understand the issues at hand is shown? Of course this will only work with a fixed constitution, which has certain areas which are unchangeable.

By the same logic, if we're only going to allow "qualified" citizens to vote, we should take equal measures to ensure that only the best are allowed to run for office, and not just the person who is best able to manipulate the largest number of people at election time. Therefore I also propose that only those who show themselves capable of thinking in a rational fashion, independent of whatever is the current fashionable idea, should be allowed to be elected. Just as we don't let insane people run the country, those who are unable, through no fault of their own merely unable, to contribute to the nation, in a fashion beneficial to themselves and others, should not be allowed to hinder and diminish growth of all forms.

Lastly I would like to propose that an option be added to all voting, this of course only matters in elections as the preceding cases were, which is a vote of no choice, ie none of the candidates meet requirements by your opinion. If over 50% of votes select this option the election is postponed for an additional period, with new candidates accepted.

Sounds to me like you're simply an elitist, telling yourself it's a bad thing, and getting too ashamed of it to admit it even to yourself.

[Marilyn Manson]

Seems like a recipe for a fairly oligarghic system. Not quite sure how you would convince people under the present system to sign away some of their rights.

Personally, I am a cautious proponent of PR. Any system that allows results like, in say, 1951, Where Labour recieved more votes nationally than The Conservatives, but The Conservatives formed the government seems a bit, well, crap to me. We should at least try and represent people's choices better than that. I honestly can't think of any way you could justify FPTP on grounds of fairness.

[Marilyn Manson]

Oh, and by the way, It's 'post' not 'pole'.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Seems like a recipe for a fairly oligarghic system. Not quite sure how you would convince people under the present system to sign away some of their rights.

Except that this one would be based on merits, while attempting to counter-balance a concentration of power in extremely small numbers. Secondly this system can be only be considered properly in conjunction with a constitution which is unalterable in certain areas, freedom of speech, religion etc.






PS W, I thought you said you didn't believe in rights? To add something to your example, what if the boat was sinking and in shark-infested waters? Would danger give you the right? How about if you threw the heaviest person overboard? Or the person who has made the least contribution to society so far? Or the oldest person? I did qualify my proposition initially.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Why, after all, should those who do not understand basic theories of freedom, equality and liberty be allowed to decide the future of others?

We can't really check that until we all agree on what these ideas mean, how they relate, which are 'basic' and how they should be implemented.* At which point, everyone is in agreement so we don't really need to vote anyway.

[W]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
PS W, I thought you said you didn't believe in rights? To add something to your example, what if the boat was sinking and in shark-infested waters? Would danger give you the right? How about if you threw the heaviest person overboard? Or the person who has made the least contribution to society so far? Or the oldest person? I did qualify my proposition initially.

You know nothing of me, all you know is what I say. You don't know I don't believe in rights, all you know is that I've said other places that I don't believe in rights. I haven't said it here, so don't mix up my arguments

Personally I would throw them both out of the boat if it looked like some of us were likely to starve to death. Doesn't mean I have the rigth to. Doesn't mean I want the others in the boat to think like that either.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W

Personally I would throw them both out of the boat if it looked like some of us were likely to starve to death

but then you couldnt eat them :(

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Now personally I despise simple-minded systems of voting such as, no offence, operate in the UK, ie 'first past the pole'. The point of having a system which only represents the barest majority of the population and claims to be 'just' escapes me completely. Now this may be the result of some patriotic bias but I would prefer a proportional representation system of voting, which generally gives a far more equal voice to all sections of society and not just the 51% you managed to convince that you can run the country in the best manner possible.

Basically you write, in Ireland at least, eleven, or less, candidates for election. When all the votes are counted either whoever got in, and had surplus votes, or the candidate with the lowest number of votes if no-one is elected gets their votes distributed. Whilst this may not sound like much initially if you consider it with some modicum of thought you'll find it actually does offer a far more egalitarian form of voting

On a slightly different angle I find the entire concept of letting everyone vote slightly bizzare (no oh my god you communist!!! replies here please). Surely if we can acknowledge the existence of certain immutable rights then anyone who cannot understand these does not have the right to vote. Why, after all, should those who do not understand basic theories of freedom, equality and liberty be allowed to decide the future of others? Might it not be better if, before one can vote, a basic test of one's capacity to understand the issues at hand is shown? Of course this will only work with a fixed constitution, which has certain areas which are unchangeable.

By the same logic, if we're only going to allow "qualified" citizens to vote, we should take equal measures to ensure that only the best are allowed to run for office, and not just the person who is best able to manipulate the largest number of people at election time. Therefore I also propose that only those who show themselves capable of thinking in a rational fashion, independent of whatever is the current fashionable idea, should be allowed to be elected. Just as we don't let insane people run the country, those who are unable, through no fault of their own merely unable, to contribute to the nation, in a fashion beneficial to themselves and others, should not be allowed to hinder and diminish growth of all forms.

Lastly I would like to propose that an option be added to all voting, this of course only matters in elections as the preceding cases were, which is a vote of no choice, ie none of the candidates meet requirements by your opinion. If over 50% of votes select this option the election is postponed for an additional period, with new candidates accepted.

Clearly these measures would need additional thought, and there are a huge range of issues I didn't consider. Thus I would encourage you to discuss the topic in any way which is conducive to a slightly higher degree of enlightenment!

Firt paragraph: I agree with you, personally, if only for the change it would facilitate; it'd be interesting. First past the post, although being bloody unfair, does result in strong governments, and none of the "fair" but nevertheless hampering division caused by proportional representation, which leads to many minor parties and frequent legislative gridlock, as everyone puts in their different views on how something should work. Also: what government would alter the system that put it into power? Proportional representation replacing first past the post will inevitably weaken the government that does the replacing. You wouldn't remove an advantage you have over someone else, would you? This is the main problem with parliamentary reform - the current Labour government is doing all it can to make alterations, because it is so powerful, with a 180 seat majority; even a change to proportional representation would still leave it massively in control. This current parliamentary term is the best hope we may have for years to effect changes, unless the next term's Labour lead is as massive as this one, which it looks unlikely to be.

Second paragraph: Ireland's sytem works for Ireland. You need proportional representation for historical reasons which I hardly need to go into. Bluntly, people would start murdering each other if the system was changed.

Third paragraph: It is true that there are people who will vote ar*eholicly; all we can do is trust that they are in the minority. This is one place where first past the post is useful: in Britain at least, where there has never been the kind of unrest there has been in Ireland, there is at current negligible potential for extremist parties to gain seats.

While I take your point about how useful voting tests would be, if used correctly, the potential for abuse is too great. The principle wa used in certain parts the United States from the late-nineteenth to mind-twentieth cennturies: they were used to prevent illiterate black populations from voting, making property and literacy requirements mandatory before someone could vote. This excluded millions of blacks who never went to school, or went to school which, by our standard, were funded so abominably as to be unable to teach basic skills. The racist system abused them by the process you propose; the potential for abuse is too great; it could not be allowed, considering what has gone before.

Fourth paragraph: By the same logic (), this process is also open to abuse. While the initial intention would be good, it would be perfectly possible, indeed likely, that "tests" would be so subjective as to make abuse likely. As an extreme example, it would be perfectly possible to ban ethnic minorities from running for office. You would be repeating a mistake made in the past, and which more than once had terrible consequences. There is too much potential for abuse.

Fifth paragraph: That's fair enough. I agree with you here. It would make good sense to provide someone with an option to indicate that they wish no one to be in power. My only objection would be that it would give the anarchists too much clout. What if a majority voted for no one?

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
but then you couldnt eat them

I assume there is no cooking tools available, and uncooked human meat tend to make you sick easilly. Diarrhea is a killer if you've limited fresh water.

[queball]

Originally posted by W

Personally I would throw them both out of the boat if it looked like some of us were likely to starve to death. Doesn't mean I have the rigth to. Doesn't mean I want the others in the boat to think like that either.

Wouldn't it be much more fun if they thought like that though?

[inf]

a proportional representation system of voting leads to notoriously weak governments.

what use is there of voting, if the government in power cannot implement anything?

democracy is the perfect solution for an imperfect world, that could only be implemented properly without imperfections.

the UKs form of democracy isn't as bad as you make it out to be, the system of MPs works quite well.

You obviously have little understanding of the political and legal system in the UK.

What does worry me is that most people don't vote, if they don't vote then the system is undemocratic.

[JonnyBGood]

Second paragraph: Ireland's sytem works for Ireland. You need proportional representation for historical reasons which I hardly need to go into. Bluntly, people would start murdering each other if the system was changed.

Third paragraph: It is true that there are people who will vote ar*eholicly; all we can do is trust that they are in the minority. This is one place where first past the post is useful: in Britain at least, where there has never been the kind of unrest there has been in Ireland, there is at current negligible potential for extremist parties to gain seats.

I'm sorry this is plain daft. We have proportional representation because it was included historically so as to allow southern unionists a say in government under the Free State. We then kept it in under Bunreacht na hEireann because it worked well. As for extremist parties, what are you on about? We don't all run around throwing bombs at each other for gods sake

While I take your point about how useful voting tests would be, if used correctly, the potential for abuse is too great. The principle wa used in certain parts the United States from the late-nineteenth to mind-twentieth cennturies: they were used to prevent illiterate black populations from voting, making property and literacy requirements mandatory before someone could vote. This excluded millions of blacks who never went to school, or went to school which, by our standard, were funded so abominably as to be unable to teach basic skills. The racist system abused them by the process you propose; the potential for abuse is too great; it could not be allowed, considering what has gone before.

Personally I feel here that you're confusing the issue at hand. Slavery has nothing to do with it. The reason millions of blacks were excluded by this system was that they didn't have the education necessary, not that they didn't have the potential just that the ability at that time was missing. Assuming one includes basic standards of education for all, providing equal opportunity, I see nothing wrong with the system.

What if a majority voted for no one? [/b]

Then perhaps one should consider that none of the candidates should be in government?

[Starbucks]

tl;dr??

[Nodrog]

Why do people work with the axiom "extremist == bad"?. It seems quite bizarre to me - it doesnt actually matter what it is that a person is extreme about, or in which direction their 'extremity' lies, but as long as they are significantly far enough off-center, watch out!

Also, the problem with votiing tests is that so called "intelligence" is not always related to a sense of morality/common sense, which is what is more needed in the politics sphere. If you left voting to the 'intellectual elite', we'd all be living in a happy fluffy Marxist paradise. People who are under the impression that they are "intelligent" very often seem to feel that they know better than the average person how they should live their lives, and this is one of the (many) things that totalitarianism stems from.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Personally I feel here that you're confusing the issue at hand. Slavery has nothing to do with it. The reason millions of blacks were excluded by this system was that they didn't have the education necessary, not that they didn't have the potential just that the ability at that time was missing.

That was the claim, anyway. Whether it was actually true or not is an altogether different question.

Assuming one includes basic standards of education for all, providing equal opportunity, I see nothing wrong with the system.

Restrictions on who can vote are fine in principle, but they are often horribly abused because, utimately, the people in power get to decide and enforce those restrictions. Any legal mechanism that can turn people away from the polls is a mechanism that's open to abuse. And it's an abuse that's very difficult to fix because you can't vote the scoundrels out of office if the scoundrels can decide who votes.

The United States has a long and unhappy history with voting restrictions (poll taxes, literacy requirements, etc). I'd prefer to leave such problems behind us. :reindeer:

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Why do people work with the axiom "extremist == bad"?. It seems quite bizarre to me - it doesnt actually matter what it is that a person is extreme about, or in which direction their 'extremity' lies, but as long as they are significantly far enough off-center, watch out!

Also, the problem with votiing tests is that so called "intelligence" is not always related to a sense of morality/common sense, which is what is more needed in the politics sphere. If you left voting to the 'intellectual elite', we'd all be living in a happy fluffy Marxist paradise. People who are under the impression that they are "intelligent" very often seem to feel that they know better than the average person how they should live their lives, and this is one of the (many) things that totalitarianism stems from.

I never once mentioned intelligence. I mentioned education in the last post I made, but I said that in the broadest possible sense possible. I'm not saying only people with 4 useless college degrees with incredibly long titles and of no practical use whatsoever should be the only ones allowed to vote. If anything I'd rather prevent prevaricating procrastinators like that from voting at all.



inf, you can't force people to vote, and I did not say that it was a horrible totalitarian system and evil Tony Blair is secretly plotting to take over the world with the martians. I just pointed out that the system of proportional representation ensures a more representative form of representative democracy.


W, fair enough I accept your point heh. Giles, it's actually really easy to sum up, nobody has the right to choose what others can and cannot do unless it directly impinges on other people. I'd operate a very mild form of social contract with this, but that's another area for debate.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Restrictions on who can vote are fine in principle, but they are often horribly abused because, utimately, the people in power get to decide and enforce those restrictions. Any legal mechanism that can turn people away from the polls is a mechanism that's open to abuse. And it's an abuse that's very difficult to fix because you can't vote the scoundrels out of office if the scoundrels can decide who votes.

I would definitely not allow those in government to decide the standards. After all George Bush and the republican party don't run everything in the US do they? Perhaps a separate branch is needed, much as you have legislative, judiciary etc now.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I never once mentioned intelligence. I mentioned education in the last post I made, but I said that in the broadest possible sense possible. I'm not saying only people with 4 useless college degrees with incredibly long titles and of no practical use whatsoever should be the only ones allowed to vote. If anything I'd rather prevent prevaricating procrastinators like that from voting at all.

So how would such a test work then? Surely any questions which would be relevant to testing if someone is worthwhile enough to vote would presuppose the party you wanted them to vote for (eg "Do you believe that you have the right to interfere in other peoples lives if their actions offend you?"). Either that or it would just be completely useless trivia ("What is Article XI Section II of the Constitution?").

Bear in mind that if you had a test that could conclusively prove how suitable you were to vote for a representitive, then we wouldnt need democracy in the first place - we could just let those who got the highest scores in the test govern the country.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
So how would such a test work then? Surely any questions which would be relevant to testing if someone is worthwhile enough to vote would presuppose the party you wanted them to vote for (eg "Do you believe that you have the right to interfere in other peoples lives if their actions offend you?"). Either that or it would just be completely useless trivia ("What is Article XI Section II of the Constitution?").

Bear in mind that if you had a test that could conclusively prove how suitable you were to vote for a representitive, then we wouldnt need democracy in the first place - we could just let those who got the highest scores in the test govern the country.

I'm wary of giving a test like that. Imagine how easy it would be to lie your way through it just to get the vote. I must admit I haven't had the time to fully follow through on my original line of reasoning. Maybe something where you would be questioned as to your actions in a certain set of possible, or maybe past, scenarios? I'm unsure at the point.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Giles, it's actually really easy to sum up, nobody has the right to choose what others can and cannot do unless it directly impinges on other people.

And you think that's all the basic political theory you need to be able to decide if, say, a fully privatised schools system would benefit the UK or whether tax breaks should be given to fixed-income pension plans?

I'd operate a very mild form of social contract with this, but that's another area for debate.

Oh. Apparently you don't.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by G_frog
And you think that's all the basic political theory you need to be able to decide if, say, a fully privatised schools system would benefit the UK or whether tax breaks should be given to fixed-income pension plans?

Yes much as merely by knowing that everything has a cause you can categorically state what began the universe. Of cours not. I'm merely pointing that out as the first stepping stone.

Oh. Apparently you don't.

Actually, I do. I accept certain areas where it would be irrational to operate the system I stated above, ie road construction.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

On a slightly different angle I find the entire concept of letting everyone vote slightly bizzare (no oh my god you communist!!! replies here please). Surely if we can acknowledge the existence of certain immutable rights then anyone who cannot understand these does not have the right to vote. Why, after all, should those who do not understand basic theories of freedom, equality and liberty be allowed to decide the future of others? Might it not be better if, before one can vote, a basic test of one's capacity to understand the issues at hand is shown? Of course this will only work with a fixed constitution, which has certain areas which are unchangeable.

I would much prefer your voting system, but your idea of who should get to vote needs work.

It seems the way you put it the 'voting class' would be those who could afford to put their kids in classes where they taught those theories would get to vote, ie, the rich. Those who had been screwed out of an education by the government would be unable to try to change things:/

However, I agree with the basic idea that most votes are coming from people who are voting on the overall physical appearance of the candidates, and that is not good.

My system would involve a complete education in the theory behind freedom etc. as part of the civil service rotation required for citizenship (three years foreign service maybe? I dunno). And yes, I would be the one to decide what exactly 'freedom' means. Funny how things work out sometimes.

Originally posted by Nodrog
The problem isnt that the voters arent 'qualified', its that they dont have the right to excersise the power which they currently wield. The fundamental problem in modern democracies/republics is that people have somehow got into their heads the idea that they somehow have the 'right' to vote on issues that affect the private lives of other people. In truth, they dont - there is no moral difference between performing an action yourself, and you electing someone to perform it for you. If you do not have the right to personally perform an action against another person, then the government has no right to perform it on your behalf. Transference of rights and responsibilities cannot create new ones any more than giving someone a bar of chocolate can make it bigger.

Quite the opposite.

By becoming a citizen in a democracy, you accept responsibility for the actions of that democracy. You also also allow yourself to be subject to the will of that government. When your vote "effects the private lives of other people," you must remember that they have knowingly accepted themselves to be subject to the will of the majority.

So as a citizen, you are responsible for the actions of your government whether or not you vote. If you can't handle that, most true democracies give the option for you to leave.

I could put a 6K word chunk here, but nobody would read it. And it would probably suck too. So I won't.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I'm sorry this is plain daft. We have proportional representation because it was included historically so as to allow southern unionists a say in government under the Free State. We then kept it in under Bunreacht na hEireann because it worked well. As for extremist parties, what are you on about? We don't all run around throwing bombs at each other for gods sake

Personally I feel here that you're confusing the issue at hand. Slavery has nothing to do with it. The reason millions of blacks were excluded by this system was that they didn't have the education necessary, not that they didn't have the potential just that the ability at that time was missing. Assuming one includes basic standards of education for all, providing equal opportunity, I see nothing wrong with the system.

Then perhaps one should consider that none of the candidates should be in government?

First paragraph: I'll take your word for it, what with you being a native and all. I wasn't implying that you "all" go around throwing bombs at each other; just a minority large enough to give everyone else a real problem if they so choose; I'm sorry if it sounded otherwise. Perhaps I should have phrased myself differently.

Second paragraph: Of course it has nothing to do with it, at current. But the potential for abuse is too great. I was simply illustrating a problem that has arisen. As anyone with a reasonable knowledge of US history will know, property, literacy and income requirements were emplaced in certain States - specifically several southern ones - solely in order to prevent blacks from gaining the vote. Blacks were kept from having a good enough education to pass the tests that allowed them to vote. To this end black people's political voice was massively weakened by the racist etablishment. The key word I would pick out in your last sentence in this paragraph is "assuming". Today such tests might work fine; what's to say in future some similar societal situation to the one I've outlined in the USA might arise - perhaps through immigration strengthening racist attitudes - in the UK? I know it's unlikely, but the principle of not allowing even the potential for discrimination to exist must be adhered to. To this end, your proposed idea could not, should not become reality. I know I'm repeating myself, but there is too much potential for abuse.

Third paragraph: Although dryly amusing, I'm not sure that's a useful attitude. Someone has to be in power.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
As evidence of this, look at the bribes currently offered to the majority that are funded by the ridiculous levels of taxation enacted on the impotent minority

and that's just a lie. the theory being that poor people are uneducated and stupid and therefore will believe anything.

you really shouldn't believe everything you see on on 'fox news'

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by acropolis
It seems the way you put it the 'voting class' would be those who could afford to put their kids in classes where they taught those theories would get to vote, ie, the rich. Those who had been screwed out of an education by the government would be unable to try to change things:/

I'd just like to mention one thing I'd forgotten to mention earlier. In Ireland there is free education, including college courses available for everyone. I'm unsure if this would be absolutely necessary, there's even some debate over the economic feasibility of the system now, and there is a registration fee of about 800 euro, about 800 dollars, for each year. Still, it is substantially different to most other education systems, and deserves mentioning due to the fact that this is not a system which is inherently biased through offering "working-class children" only cheaper methods of getting into university. Unfortunately university remains largely dominated by the middle-classes in Ireland despite this measure.





PS I hear George Bush is planning tax cuts for the rich nod! Capitalism 4eva!

[acropolis]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I'd just like to mention one thing I'd forgotten to mention earlier. In Ireland there is free education, including college courses available for everyone. I'm unsure if this would be absolutely necessary, there's even some debate over the economic feasibility of the system now, and there is a registration fee of about 800 euro, about 800 dollars, for each year. Still, it is substantially different to most other education systems, and deserves mentioning due to the fact that this is not a system which is inherently biased through offering "working-class children" only cheaper methods of getting into university. Unfortunately university remains largely dominated by the middle-classes in Ireland despite this measure.

PS I hear George Bush is planning tax cuts for the rich nod! Capitalism 4eva!

As a member of the voting minority, is it my natural inclination to use my authority to ensure that all qualified people can vote, or to attempt to only allow those who agree with me, qualified or not, to vote?

Yeah.

And what does 'tax cuts for the rich' have to do with capitalism?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by acropolis
As a member of the voting minority, is it my natural inclination to use my authority to ensure that all qualified people can vote, or to attempt to only allow those who agree with me, qualified or not, to vote?

Yeah.

And what does 'tax cuts for the rich' have to do with capitalism?

I'd say it totally depends on your own morality. Personally I vote for humour purposes only in general elections.




It's a joke heh.