It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The right to vote

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Freeborn
 


In theory, you have the more morally correct opinion. But your rainbow, kumbaya vision of democracy is a sham. It will never work.



, kumbaya vision of democracy....I like that, it made me laugh, thank you.

I certainly don't advocate criminals having any right to vote at all!

I also recognise that we are each different, with different abilities and skill levels at everything.

I am very much a realist and am acutely aware of the short comings and failures of the current system.

However, I am very wary and suspicious of anything or anyone who says 'we know better than you and are more qualified than you'.
Elitism does not work either.

As I stated before, I certainly don't have all the answers, I just know that the current electorial and parliamentary systems and procedures need radical reform and the party political system needs to be abolished.

But the abolishment of universal sufferage is not the answer.
Any attempt to educate and stimulate the population into knowing and understanding or even being aware of political issues and current affairs would be beneficial.
But surely you understand that the last thing the PTB want is an aware populace.




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


hey freeborn its been a long time since I posted with you. I hope you have been good during my absence. I don’t remember ever reading a "kumbya" view of yours. i have actuly enjoyed reading your posts in the past.

I honestly would like to see everyone voting. but if their idea of a policy is "change" and the have no knowledge of political policies or how government effects the population as a whole, then no they should not be voting. I don’t know if I conveyed my thoughts as well as I would have liked but my prior posts do a little better.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Education should primarily teach students to think for themselves not install the norms and values that society expects from them. The contemporary individual is dumbed down to the point they are apathetic towards serious issues - political, economics, finance, etc.

I hardly watch television myself, only documentaries and the news. As a 23 year old, I am probably a minority in the United Kingdom who engages in this sort of lifestyle. Reading and gaining knowledge is more significant to my growth as an individual, not the fatuous reality programs that give false hope and celebrate the victims of fame.


I totally agree with everything said above, however, it wouldn't do any harm for schools to go through matters like politics and HOW and WHY it affects them, i'm not saying install values into them, but so they uderstand how the world operates so they are prepared for it and so they know why and what they are voting for.




[edit on 20-4-2009 by MCoG1980]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


No worries!

Why don't you agree with convicted criminals (even petty thieves) being debarred from voting? Is it because they are incapable of making intelligent, thought out decisions?

If so, how is debarring unintelligent people any different?

Let's take a look at the distribution of intelligence in a society.



The majority have an IQ between 85- 115. These people are of average intelligence, and have the biggest say about how the country is run. Now contrast the way countries are run to the way military units or corporations are run. Are decisions made on the basis of what the majority think, or based on what the most able experts and leaders think?

Anyone with an IQ under 100 shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's the most realistic way of creating an educated populace.

Educating people is another noble idea, but I doubt it would work. Ordinary people have neither the ability nor the propensity to grapple with and understand complex issues surrounding politics, economics etc.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
The truth is that every man is not equal, and the sooner we recognise that the faster we can correct our systems of governance.


Absolutely.
Equality leads to a self-orientated society, a "me culture". Equality does not create social cohesion it merely widens the divides even more. Breeding equality and treating it as a virtue leads to grandiose plans for a "perfect society" - something Mussolini and Hitler passionately advocated*.

Restricting the vote allows the right individuals to gain power, not the most popular. Criminals, homeless and those who seek to influence politics via money (extremely rich) should be denied the vote.

*"Perfect society" is a fascist doctrine.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The problem with democracies is two fold.

First, every democracy in the historical record has failed. Whether casualty of war or by self inflicted destruction, none have survived.

Next, democracies are inherenty flawed in concept and results in deprivation of rights and freedoms.
In fact, it is a condition that breeds oppression, suppresses individuality and real choice, proclaims doctorine and mandates complicity of all asserting that a majority agreement regarding any issue, whether real or imagined, defines society and provides advocacy on behalf of the will of the populus.
Non-compliance is then attacked and decared criminal. To further thwart behavior deemed unacceptable, legislation is created, enforced and manifest through implementation of consequences designed to deter individuals from living contrary to these philosophies.

The problem should be self evident. When a large group trumps smaller groups and individuals regarding society, philosophy and behavior, they are then nothing more than a de facto dicatatorial oligarchy.

Individuals and minority groups are regulated, freedom is demoted to adjudicated privilege subject to permission, license and regulatory and arbitrary conditions.

This is why America was established as a Republic.

However, through manipulation by so called majorities, the Republic has been poisoned and the infection is spreading.

through incremental perversion, control of life sustaining foods, nutrients, vitamins has been surrendered to usurpers;

education has been derailed of expectation through deleting curriculum such as civics, and controlling the books, information and materials to be studied;

Media has converted news and journalism into commercialised partisan propaganda and senseless brain fodder;

Our republic is wrongly referred to as a democracy *(note that even the article at above education hyperlink referrs to America as a democracy), so often and for so long, many, when asked what form of government we have, they answer the latter.

Our presidential elections are a joke. The people in fact do not vote for the president. This is reserved for the electoral college.
With this format, This does not mean a president with the most popular votes will win. This means your vote is the equivelent of a pacifier shoved in the mouth of a screaming infant. It shuts you up while you suck on it's false satisfacion by proxy.

If America is to survive, we need the republic strong, unite together and stop allowing ongoing division of this unity.

If not, we might as well change the country's name to:
The United States of Dystopia.
For, that is where we and our great republic will end,



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


The United States was a republic but has cease to be such an institution, it is starting to act like a democracy with the majority governing as such.

You can argue, and quite successfully, that political campaigning is dumbing down and diluting the population. If not distracting. Do majority of voters read and grasp the platform their candidate is representing or do they allow the media to decide for them?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Good to see you back DG, ATS certainly needs the likes of you at present.


The thing is, in my heart I probably agree with what the majority here have said, I just can't bring myself to advocate such an elitist attitude, (especially when I've never taken an IQ test and have no idea what mine is!).

We certainly seem to have developed what can possibly be described as a mediocrity where everyone and everything is a pale imitation of each other and mediocrity is encouraged.
But where do we stop?
Steralise those with a low IQ?
And all criminals?
Where does this elitism stop?
It could be a very slippery slope.
And weren't they exactly the same goals as Hitler?

No easy answers.

I suspect that if the PTB get their way then universal sufferage may well become a thing of the past and electoral rights maybe based not even on intelligence or ability but on wealth and social standing!

I know I am in danger of repeating myself, but electoral and parliamentary process and procedure desperately needs urgent reform.

Will this address all the issues?
Most definately not, but it would be a good start.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


well I know my view seemed strong. I want everyone to vote I just want them to take the time and know what they are doing. IQ testing for voting is a little much in my opinion. I’m more for them just passing a short maybe 10-15 question quiz only on the candidate which they are voting for right there at the pole booth.

the us population needs to wake up and educate their children on the truth. im not saying turn them all into ATS whack jobs like the likes of us. but fill them in that there is nothing wrong with questioning authority and its ok to be a little cynical and not take everything at face value especially coming from a politician.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DaleGribble
 


We no longer have people's politician's whose over-riding interest and concern was to do right and to make a genuine difference through the political process.
Regardless of whether you agreed with them it was possible to respect their strength of conviction and their general intent.

We have nothing but carear politicians at present whose only concerns are personal advancement and the promotion of 'The Nanny State' and the limitation of personal civil liberties and free will.

These politicians are clones of each other and only display different shades of pale blue.
They have no passion, pride or soul.

Party politics is an absolute joke and offers us nothing in way of effective and progressive government.

It is not 'the people's' fault that they have so little interest in political issues and current affairs.
They are actively discouraged from doing so through an education system designed to force feed 'facts' through the curriculum rather than learning children to think for themselves and MSM which instills a general feeling of fear or apathy and dumbing down.

So few people seem capable of asking that one important question that has been so important in human development; why?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


well said. that was probably the best post i have ever read on this site. and you are absolutely right. if we are going to have career liars, i mean polticians whats the point in voting anyways. the fact that people are so dumbed down is why they keep their jobs. so you are right why teach the to ask why. i remember asking why in school was a good way to miss recess. lol. and its really not funny. it pisses me off that you are right, and i hope you take that as a compliment...



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I understand your concerns, and of course share some of them.

I mean IQ isn't a universally accurate predictor of intelligence after all, and perhaps intelligence isn't everything.

So how about a system where suffrage is a privilege rather than a right. By that I mean that citizenship must be earned through some contribution to the country:

a. A threshold for tax payments. If you don't contribute enough in tax (or any at all) then why should you have a say over where it is spent

b. Military service, or real public service like driving an ambulance (not civil servants though).

c. Voluntary service

d. Passing a test which proves you have a basic knowledge of politics, economics, social science etc. We have a test for driving cars, we now need one for driving the country.

Any of those would be considered a real contribution, and would allow suffrage. Those on benefits, criminals etc should be restricted from the franchise. That would limit the "sponging" elements of society from having a say.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


So the right to vote depends on some sort of aquiescence to the current system?
No dissension allowed.

I understand your point about contributing to society but that places serious limitations on people.

I personally would have been barred from voting until my mid-30's despite being politically and socially 'aware' if using the criteria you provided.

I run my own pub at present and frequently share my opinions with my patrons and one thing that frustrates and annoys me is the general lack of understanding and interest in political issues and currnent affairs.
This is very rarely due to lack of intelligence but simply down to poor education, the effects of dumbing down through MSM and simply because the over-riding concern in their life is just 'getting by'.
However, when pressed, these people sometimes offer simplistic but intuitive viewpoints.

Educated and 'knowledgeable' people can be so conceited, egotistical and anal with a tendency to over complicate things and procrastinate.
Surely such people should also be restricted from voting.
In addition, who set's the values by which we judge people's suitablity and eligibility to voting rights?

There are no easy answers.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 

So the right to vote depends on some sort of aquiescence to the current system?
No dissension allowed.


In a way, yes. If you do not believe in the system then how can you participate within it? Wouldn't that be equally farcical?

If you don't believe in statecraft and intrinsic statehood, then how can you meaningfully engage in it.

The method I propose would allow the creation of a strong government. If we must have collectivism and democracy, then I would at least prefer it to be strong and progressive.

Contribution to the system MUST be required in order to allow a say into the running of the system. Being a dissenter- not contributing to the system, while having opinions on how the system should be run, is simply not acceptable.

The question of who decides the boundaries and limits is the main reason why the system I propose will never be practically applicable in real life. That's why it could be tempered with a constitution, to serve as the basic determinator of what a citizen is.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
National Insurance is a perfect indication to whether you should be allowed to vote or not. As others have stated previously, if you do not contribute then why should you be allowed a say?

If you give suffrage to those who are receivers of government welfare, then what stops this social-economic group keeping the government in power based on their welfare cheque? That's not democracy.

The working population should be entitled to the vote.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
National Insurance is a perfect indication to whether you should be allowed to vote or not. As others have stated previously, if you do not contribute then why should you be allowed a say?

If you give suffrage to those who are receivers of government welfare, then what stops this social-economic group keeping the government in power based on their welfare cheque? That's not democracy.

The working population should be entitled to the vote.


So you advocate the further alienation of a whole group of people.

Whilst I recognise that there are major faults with our benefit system which is systematically abused by many, however, there are genuine cases who are on benefits through no fault of their own.
I cannot accept that, call me a bleeding heart liberal if you want, (which I am most definately not!), but I'm sorry, I have a little more compassion for my fellow man.

And in times like we face at present, people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own would no longer have the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the the people whose incompetency and inadequacy cost them their jobs!

I know what we have at present is not true democracy, is inadequate, promotes mediocrity and requires drastic and urgent overhaul, but it is better than anything that has been suggested here so far.
At least it is not based on prejudice or a mis-placed sense of superiority!



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Earlier, I did advocate those who are long term unemployed and refuse to work should be denied the vote. But suffrage should be a privilege and not a right, after all, we are not all equal on this Earth.

You have to agree, criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. These individuals are repaying their debts to society and should only be allowed to vote when released from prison. Not while in prison.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
So you advocate the further alienation of a whole group of people.

Whilst I recognise that there are major faults with our benefit system which is systematically abused by many, however, there are genuine cases who are on benefits through no fault of their own.
I cannot accept that, call me a bleeding heart liberal if you want, (which I am most definately not!), but I'm sorry, I have a little more compassion for my fellow man.


This discussion has little to do with the existence of a safety net. That's another debate for another day.

However a primary principle should be that benefits seekers should never be allowed to determine their level of benefits. That is the real reason why the franchise ought to be restricted from them.

As soon as they are allowed to determine their own income via benefits... they will continue to remain on it. What is the real reason that benefits cannot be cut in modern times? I think its because the party that tries it would be slaughtered in the polls by those very benefits seekers.

Additionally, benefits seekers add nothing to a society in financial terms. Why should they be allowed to dictate how tax proceeds are spent if they don't contribute? Again, a simple question which is totally unanswerable by liberal morals.



And in times like we face at present, people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own would no longer have the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the the people whose incompetency and inadequacy cost them their jobs!


Losing your job is not the same thing as being on benefits. I have lost my job a couple of times before, but I have never been on benefits. It's a little something called the savings culture... save 10% of your paycheck to tide yourself over when you lose your job.



I know what we have at present is not true democracy, is inadequate, promotes mediocrity and requires drastic and urgent overhaul, but it is better than anything that has been suggested here so far.
At least it is not based on prejudice or a mis-placed sense of superiority!


Is it so misplaced? Your equality mantra suggests that I am no different from a long term benefits seeker, and I take that as an insult.

I'll say it through a loudspeaker in front of a crowd of benefits seekers if I have to- I believe that those who contribute into the system are superior to those that take out of the system.

We have become afraid of the concept of inequality, and I think that's a great shame. All men are not equal, and never have been. Why do we repress that fact?

The doctor and the engineer are superior to the perpetual unemployed.

The families who work and save up for their own house are superior to the family that claims council housing.

Of course these are merely my opinions, but I would think it exceptionally difficult for you to prove them incorrect. Am I right?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Prisoners can't vote now.
I see no reason why that should change.
Indeed, I think that people who have been convicted of some crimes should permanently loose the right to vote, even upon release.

There is certainly an arguement for people who abuse the benefit system and no longer use it as a crutch but rather as a life style provider should be barred from voting.
But who determines who is an abuser and who is genuine?
As said before, the benefit system as a whole is a topic for discussion at another time, I think we all agree it is rotten to the core.

The government has become the biggest employer in the UK, either directly or indirectly, and many people have a vested interest in maintainig the status quo.
But the total in private or self employment still far exceeds both them and benefit recipients.

The largest voting block by far are the apathetic majority who choose not to vote!
Should these people be excluded from voting?
Possibly.
I have absolutely no problem with someone disagreeing with me, at least they have an opinion, even if it is conditioned and not self reasoned, but simply not caring and being totally disinterested, I find that unforgiveable.
But still we must ask why?
It is because the majority are conditioned NOT to think and question.
That is one of the core issues which must be addressed, but the PTB do not want an aware population simply because they would no longer be the PTB!

People are correct in stating that we are not all equal.
But who decides what skill / ability is more important than another?
We are all inter-dependant.

Yes, we do need more of a meritocracy, but the system must be fluid enough to allow skill to emerge and develop and not limit it to those who achieved a certain level of social standing or financial wealth.

We need drastic reform of our education system and electoral and parliamentary systems and procedures and we need to rid ourselves of these self serving, pompous, arrogant, in bred bastards who pass themselves off as politicians these days!



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Prisoners can't vote now.
I see no reason why that should change.


European Court dictates otherwise.

If you agree to prohibited prisoners from voting, on grounds they've violated the collective via their actions, then why not restrict those who fail to contribute at all?

Controversially, you can successfully argue that those who are employed by the government should not be allowed to vote on grounds they may be bias towards the party in power. But, these individuals tend to be well educated and understand the concept of a strong government. Potential problems in that area I confess.

Prior to the Reform Act 1832, the British Parliament had no official political parties and MP's acted independently - Parliament was powerful. It changed, for worse, when the majority were given the vote. Career politicians, uneducated population and trivial matters became the norm.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join