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.

 

Democracy: Only 25% should have the right to vote!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I live in a small country called Denmark, and I truly believe that we have something close to the best democracy in the world with aproximate 8 different parties to vote for, stretching from the extreme left to the extreme right.
But even though I live in a favorable democracy I still see some of the big flaws with Democracy clearly.

Most people do not know much about politics, and they vote on behalf of stupid statements they heard on TV, or cast their vote because they think they know what the parties ideologies are.
The problem is that 75 % do NOT know what the different parties ideologies are, they do not know what the different members opinions are on various subjects. They just know that if they need more money they vote one thing. If your a student and need more money you vote another party.
And now they are even talking about letting 16 years old vote as well!!?? (in Denmark)

Then there is the last 25 % who are actually engaged in politics and know why they vote what they do. Those 25% are disgussed by the way the countries future is decided.

In the perfect world, my solution would be to make a test. Like a drivers license test, where the person should be asked simple questions regarding politics and ideologies before beeing allowed to vote!

What do you think? Is Democracy great the way it is? I for one can't even imagine how angry I would be if I only had 2 parties to vote for.. How can that ever be a Democracy? Well that's just my opinion




posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Democracy my friend has not worked since 400BC. Republic should be the way all countries operate with a small federal government and large community governments making the decisions that effect individual communities.

As far as your idea for the test goes, I agree, there should be a test for virtually everything, raising kids, politics and others. However, that's a slippery slope to go down.

Who makes the test? Who decides who is smart enough to take it, to pass or fail it? I am assuming it would be that 25% of the "intelligent" voting community?

If that's the case then we are in the same place we began, with 25% of the people making the rules for everybody else.

Very difficult thing to implement, let alone discuss and hammer out the details.

Good thread thought, it should make for some very good discussion. S&F.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
If you are referring to the United States, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Maybe the 25% should find a way to better educate the 75% in the field of politics.

IMO, politics has always been about "give me". Give me something and I'll vote for you. Or at least, that is the way I see it here in the US.


I for one can't even imagine how angry I would be if I only had 2 parties to vote for.


In many states, there were more than 2 parties to vote. Unfortunately, many Americans stick to the top 2.

www.politicsone.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Who makes the test? Who decides who is smart enough to take it, to pass or fail it? I am assuming it would be that 25% of the "intelligent" voting community?

It is a good question how difficult the test should be but then again, the politicians would educate the people on their ideologies and such. That would boost the generel knowledge of politics and people would get more engaged in politics generally. But imo that's what politicians try to avoid!



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
If you are referring to the United States, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.


We ceased to be a republic the very day that state senators were chosen by the ignorant masses.

Jon



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Alternative Thinker
 


Em..

Then its not democracy, its elitism..

Something that democracy replaced because it didn't work for anyone except the elites..

I get what you are saying but having everyone free and equal means everyone should have the right to vote, whether they do or not... or else its not a democracy.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


Wiki link

While it seems there is debate over what to call it, we are still recognized as a Republic.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


Exactly. This nations "stupid filter" got clogged decades ago. This "republic" is little more than mob rule by the lowest common denominator.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
You want to fix politics? Easy as pie.

If you vote for a person, you are required to assist in funding their government. People who didn't vote for the person in question get off without having to pay for the burden of their ideologies but they also recieve no benefits from the sitting government.

I assure you, if everyone had to pay for their chosen politian's excesses, we would all be much more careful who we vote for.

Combine this with the ability for constituents to instantly recall everyone, even a president, and you have the basis for a true free society.

Everyone will become experts in political ideology, when you make politics about spending your money instead of erroneously thinking about politics in terms of spending someone else's money.

Jon



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Alternative Thinker
 


democracy has not worked that well in history because the wealthy and powerful have always corrupted it. the arrogance of wealth and power have always usurped democracy, as it eventually has with most governments.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Voxel
 


Wiki link

While it seems there is debate over what to call it, we are still recognized as a Republic.


Isn't Wikipedia the very definition of "the ignorant masses"? Besides if we were really a republic, what representation does each sovereign state have in the federal government?

Jon

EDIT: To make sense more.

[edit on 6.17.2009 by Voxel]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The people on this thread are a great example of those who should not be allowed to vote.

"America isn't a democracy - its a Republic."

Are you honestly so ignorant?

A Ford automobile - is a Ford - but first and foremost it is an automobile.

A Democratic Republic is a Republic - but first and foremost it is a democracy.

OP - you are right on the money - I think a test is an excellent idea - to get rid of the people who THINK they know about politics - but wouldn't actually know if their ass was ablaze.

Just to once and for all clear this up for all who don't think America is a democracy - if YOU can vote for a political representative, or outcome - you live in a democracy. If you don't get a vote - then you don't live in a democracy.

While America is technically a democracy - in reality peoples votes make no difference because policy is not decided by the representatives they vote for - but by non elected elites who tell the politicians what to do. This is an oligarchy - and at the moment is being expressed as corporate fascism.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


I applaud the comment.

If you give a few the power to decide who the voters are, you give them the power to decide who the elected is.

edit : Only one way out, e-du-ca-tion !


[edit on 17-6-2009 by Manouche]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


Surely we can agree that Wiki is adequate to reference something as menial as the classification of a national government.

The representation that each state has would be the House and the Senate.

And personally I don't see the masses as ignorant. Misled? Apathetic? Sure. But most people aren't stupid.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Then allow this humble retard to invite you to actually crack open a dictionary and look up the definition of "democracy". When you realize that the entire population doesn't vote on every single decision, granting that right to selected individuals - then come back hurling baseless and pedestrian insults.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I completely agree that a competency test should be taken prior to voting.

But in America not only do we NOT do that, you don't even have to prove you are a LEGAL citizen of the United States and can vote.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Voxel
 

The representation that each state has would be the House and the Senate.


This is pretty much OT so I won't go too deeply into this.

The House and Senate are legislative bodies. By why do we need two? Because one is supposed to represent the peoples' interests and the other is to represent the States' interests.

Senators were envisioned as emissaries of the State. Two from each state would gather in washington to support the state's interests as an independent sovereign nation. They were supposed to be able to crush laws that were hurtful to the state even if such laws were widely desired by the public.

How can a senator, today, go against the will of the public if he is at the mercy of the public opinion to retain his post? He can't! That means he cannot be a representative of his state.

Instead of a bicameral legislature with opposing interests, we have two legislatures that represent exactly the same interests.

Jon



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


I totally agree with you here. I did not intend to stir up a wasps nest by using the word "republic". I merely wanted to bring up the difference between a true democracy vs a republic as representative government inherently belies the idea that eliminating voters changes the equation.

If 3/4 of us were precluded from the last vote I feel it's safe to say we'd still be referring to Mr. Obama as "Mr. President".

In a true democracy restricting voting to the best and brightest might seem like a good idea on the surface. But in fact it would just end up creating an elite ruling class who voted with their own interests in mind and not a concensus perspective.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Then allow this humble retard to invite you to actually crack open a dictionary and look up the definition of "democracy". When you realize that the entire population doesn't vote on every single decision, granting that right to selected individuals - then come back hurling baseless and pedestrian insults.


Democracy has many variations - America's is a Republic - which is a type of representative democracy that includes a president.

Your idea of democracy exists NOWHERE in the world as a form of government for a nation - does that mean that there isn't a single democracy in the world?

Republic: en.wikipedia.org... - especially note the following;


In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy ..


Also see;

Democracy: en.wikipedia.org...

My insults may have been a bit strongly worded - I have since edited the language in my post.

However, it disturbs me that people don't even know what a democracy is - when you have voters at that level of ignorance, what results can you expect when you allow them to vote?

I agree with the OP - test peoples competence before allowing them to vote.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join