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: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

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?


Not true! Take a look at the Switzerland's direct democracy system.
This is a very good democratic system, but can only work with small, engaged polulations

direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch...




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Make every voter take a competency exam. Allow everybody to vote. The weight of their vote depends upon their exam score.

If they scored 50%, their vote counts as 1/2 a vote.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



What is a voter competency exactly ? What does distinguish a good voting approach ?

It's interesting the thread started on the idea basis that a minority of 25% of voters is dissatisfied with the opinions of a majority of 75% and we are trying to find a way for the minority to impose his will on the majority.

It's a very dangerous path I think. Not the one I want to go by.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manouche
reply to post by jsobecky
 


It's a very dangerous path I think. Not the one I want to go by.


Greater than, less than or equal to the dangers of the majority dominating the minority?



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 


What is competency? Basic knowledge of the issues and the candidates' stances on the issues. Knowledge of the structure of gov't., etc.

Basically, this is what we should try to avoid:



Putting the future of our nation in the hands of voters like this is dangerous. It's like handing the keys to your Ferrari, along with a fifth of whiskey and a ki of coke, to a sixteen year old.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Manouche
 

What is competency? Basic knowledge of the issues and the candidates' stances on the issues. Knowledge of the structure of gov't., etc.


You are dancing around the problem. What knowledge of what issues do you test for?

How can you test people on the basics of our form of government when the educational system has been corrupted so much that it purposefully hides the truth from the curious student?

I was taught by my "american history" professor that the main role of the federal government is to provide for its citizens! This was from a guy with letters after his name.

Do you test to see if people understand the meaning of republic and state sovereignty?
...or...
Do you test to see if they know what abortion is and what role personal faith should play in politics?

If I were to design a test it would try to trick the taker on purpose.

Example:
Q) What is the highest law making body in the land?
A) The supreme court. Since John Marshall arbitrarily extended the courts power in the early 1800s the legislative branch of government has been largely neutered.

Q) How many senators are chosen by each state to represent them in the federal government?
A) None. Since the 17th amendment was passed in 1913, senators represent nothing but the public interest.

Q) What branch of the federal government does the Federal Reserve operate under?
A) None. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation with little oversight from government.
...

Jon

[edit on 6.18.2009 by Voxel]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


What do you imply by a majority dominating a minority ?
A topic is raised, a majority forms around one view. Another topic is raised, another majority forms around one view. It's not necessarily the same people in the majority. It's not a structured group dominating another group. It's moving looking for a global consensus.
If you are willing to be part of a fair civilian society, you accept your views will sometimes be the majority or the minority. If you don't accept that, advocate a totalitarianism ruled by your group.

If you give up your right to vote to the agreement of a group of people, you strongly empower them. They will now be the structured group with the right to dismiss your vote... and your opinion.
Do you consider freedom of opinion is not a basic right ? Do you consider there are inferior and superior human beings ? Do you advocate the superior class having rights over the inferior class ?

I am a cynical by the way and posting from a theorical point of view, I think we are in a system where, generally, a few impose his will over a majority.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alternative Thinker
 


well that's because democracy is flawed, and the more it goes on, the dumber and more vote slavers politicians get. All they do is plant their seeds and let the farming of votes go on.

A republic with a director and little divided up parts is the best. It might slow things down, but this is what government should do. In America, we've created the bureaucracy to try and slow things down, but then that slows down other things that should go fast.

A republic with a central guiding figure, not a central dictating figure, should be the way it goes. This director would have no right to call anything into affect unless a supreme court judge (just one) said his executive orders were on the right basis.

Meanwhile, I've have something called the "shell doctrine" that I have been toying with. Government should be like the shell of a turtle. The shell of the turtle protects the inside from corruption through the outside. It does not go into the inside. You do not see the shell having sudden growths in organs. This is the best show for what the republic's government should do. It should protect the inside organs, not grow into them. All government is is a shell for the internal operations of the civilian world to continue on peacefully. And just like an turtle, America needs to eat. It needs new immigrants to keep things going. but a turtle makes these food sources part of it, it does not allow itself to become a plant or a fly. Likewise, the republic should allow immigrants to come in, input their beautiful cultures and ways of life, but conform to our language and ways as well.


Well that's the way it should be, and all nations that do that mysteriously last longer. How interesting of a parallel.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
jsobecky,

"knowledge of the issues and the candidates' stances on the issues".

How do you measure that ? What is a satisfactory level of knowledge ? And who decides ?
Instead of coming up with an answer which is about punishing people because of their lack of knowledge, why don't we put our effort in educating people, inviting them to think, to contribute in a intelligent manner and developping our human civilisation ?

I know. It's far more difficult. What is worth is usually difficult.

What is our goal ? Castigate, polarize, divide, make guilty, dominate ?
Or improve our society, spread knowledge, education, enlightment ?


Voxel,

Actually, I think you are dancing around the problem. Or do I ?
I am not sure the OP was talking about the ignorance about the institutions but more about opinions.
I might be wrong tough, I might have misunderstood.
I will try and read again the first post.

I am sorry for my poor skills in english, I hope it's about understandable.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 



Originally posted by Voxel

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Manouche
 

What is competency? Basic knowledge of the issues and the candidates' stances on the issues. Knowledge of the structure of gov't., etc.


You are dancing around the problem. What knowledge of what issues do you test for?


Baloney. Don't tell me that a well-designed competency test cannot be developed. There are competency tests for many disciplines such as the trades, nursing, etc., so it can be done.

There are professionals who do just that for a living. You start with a core set of objectives, and go from there.


How can you test people on the basics of our form of government when the educational system has been corrupted so much that it purposefully hides the truth from the curious student?


Another excellent justification for a test. Voting should be a life skill, the same as balancing your checkbook or cooking. You cannot use a lousy education system as a reason not to strive for a better-educated voter. Maybe this would be a motivation to improve the failing education system.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 



Originally posted by Manouche
jsobecky,

"knowledge of the issues and the candidates' stances on the issues".

How do you measure that ? What is a satisfactory level of knowledge ? And who decides ?
Instead of coming up with an answer which is about punishing people because of their lack of knowledge, why don't we put our effort in educating people, inviting them to think, to contribute in a intelligent manner and developping our human civilisation ?

I know. It's far more difficult. What is worth is usually difficult.

What is our goal ? Castigate, polarize, divide, make guilty, dominate ?
Or improve our society, spread knowledge, education, enlightment ?


...and this will be the main argument used by some to object to a competency test. "Oh the poor little citizens cannot be expected to put any personal effort into this. We must coddle them and protect them from cradle to grave. It would be discriminatory to demand a level of competency in order to vote...."

If that's not an elitist attitude, I don't know what is.:shk:



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Alternative Thinker
 


I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make by having people take a test of sorts prior to voting. People vote for the person/party they identify with the most. As for the U.S., I'm still for breaking us up into sections based on people's political ideology. I'd like to live in the Libertarian section of the country, hopefully it will be somewhere warm.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manouche
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

If you are willing to be part of a fair civilian [civilized] society, you accept your views will sometimes be the majority or the minority. If you don't accept that, advocate a totalitarianism ruled by your group.


I'll make it real simple. I dont want any part of this "society" nor do I desire to wield any sort of rule over anyone or anything. I simply want to be left alone and in turn will leave everyone else alone.

The "majority" has decided I cannot be left alone and uses me as a cash cow, feudal peon, against my will indentured servant, etc...

This majority v. minority nonsense is just as worthless as the mythical left v. right nonsense. Either way I'm still in chains.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Wow, alot of nice discussions here!
Some argue that it can't be a democracy when only a restricted part of the society is allowed to vote, and I know that but it's a real flaw that the person or party with the most money to advertice, and the best karma when beeing taped is the ones who end up with the most power.
If people where educated, and had opinions based on knowledge, their vote would matter, and the politic they voted on would be real.
Every party in Denmark (except from the extreme Lefts and Rights) are centralizing. They all convert to "Catch 'em all" parties, and adjust their politics to whatever the majority of the voters want, not caring about their old ideologies.
If the voters where educated and knew what ideologi suited them the best, the parties would not be allowed to change their political point of views like that.

The test I was talking about was not meant to create eliteism but to force people to know why, they vote what they do. I just believe that a democratic system based on educated opinions is worth more than opinions based on who looks best on television.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
You know I can't stand the way voting is done. So many uninformed. Like the Obama supporters who said on the radio they thought Palin would indeed make a good running mate for him!!!

But what would probably happen is the test itself would APPEAL to the lowest denominator. Things you would learn from watching the MSM, and listening to the most dumbed down talking points from church or "community organizers." And then the actual informed who would understand the philosophies down to their roots, wouldn't actually know the answers, because they didn't watch 6 hours of TV a day and had the ability to use logic and think for themselves.

It would be very easy to do this I think, because people who are smart and think for themselves look at tests differently from those who don't. This is apparent by listening to college students comments after taking one and not doing well. They pretend that every question is an opinion, and there is no right answer. Well they need to learn that attitude isn't going to help them. But now if the PTB USE that in this situation, use it to their advantage... ouch



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


By society, I meant a people with a government.
If you refuse a government, I don't understand why you reply to me then and the point of your question.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Can you explain what is knowledge of the issues when candidates often disagree on a situation assessment or the cause for a situation ? What is a candidate stance when he changes it several times during a campaign ?

You want to rely on professionals who do just that for a living. They do that for a living, it's clear they will be independant of course and not controlled by the ones who would appoint them. They will not manipulate the test for other benefit than the community.
Explain how you can be sure a test will not one day deprive you from your right to vote. I reckon I am not comfortable with the idea of a test because I assume it will quickly turn into how your opinions suit or not the people with power. And I don't think formal questions on a political system is the key to give people a deeper comprehension of politics, politicians and life.

Expressing a view is not like cooking or driving. It's not a receipt you follow step by step. Viewing voting as a skill is a shock to me. It's not one quarter eggs, one quarter sugar, one quarter milk, one quarter flour, put it in the oven, done ! Look around you, people are still in disagree with the results of the last US presidentials, the way policies are conducted, the direction the USA is heading. In your opinion, who has passed the test ? Who has failed ? Is it the right time to judge the policies made ? When is the right time to decide on who voted well or not ? When will it be undeniable the policies made were good or bad and see who was right who was wrong ?

The fact you use the term discriminatory and distort what I am trying to say shows you are confident you are superior to other people, sure you are worth the right to vote and feel you are in a strong position to claim it and degrade others.
I am not going to be rude. I want to show you it is a matter of perspective. Please understand it's for the sake of giving an example and don't be offended. If I were a totalitarian convinced my ideas are superior for the well-being of the mass, I would forbid you to have a say in important matters because, in my opinion, you show your inability to understand what endangers individual liberties and freedom.
It's a matter of perspective. It does not revolve around "oh the poor little citizens who can't put any effort, the feeble ones", it's about what gives you, as an individual, the legitimacy to claim I am not competent enough to vote.

I choose to be tolerant, I don't want to forbid you to say anything, I make mine one famous quote attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I darely think nobody has the right to shut up a man and voting is a basic of freedom of speech and opinion.
I am happy we have the freedom to discuss it and I hope, one day, someone with a better eloquence than me will change your perspective. I don't want it to be imposed on you.

I was not being elitist in any way, I don't have as a postulate some people are more entitled than others to something.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alternative Thinker
If the voters where educated...


That's it and there is no escape.



The test I was talking about was not meant to create eliteism but to force people to know why, they vote what they do


But...



and I know that but it's a real flaw that the person or party with the most money to advertice, and the best karma when beeing taped is the ones who end up with the most power.


And...



They all convert to "Catch 'em all" parties, and adjust their politics to whatever the majority of the voters want, not caring about their old ideologies.


So knowing the whys and whats is not enough, you need a real understanding, detachment and judgement. You can acquire this with a better education.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manouche
Instead of coming up with an answer which is about punishing people because of their lack of knowledge, why don't we put our effort in educating people, inviting them to think, to contribute in a intelligent manner and developping our human civilisation ?


One last thing I want to add.
I was not looking down saying there are little people who need to be educated and finding excuses for them. I don't organise people into a hierarchy or casts.
I am saying by education we can all improve as a whole and get better as a society and civilisation. We should work towards this goal.

Looking for ways to ignore issues is counterproductive. Your solution to set people aside is ignoring the issue that people are misled, deceived and manipulated without being even aware of it.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Voxel
 

Another excellent justification for a test. Voting should be a life skill, the same as balancing your checkbook or cooking. You cannot use a lousy education system as a reason not to strive for a better-educated voter. Maybe this would be a motivation to improve the failing education system.


I will get to the test issue in a moment.

First, I absolutely agree that what we call "politics," the application of rhetoric and logic, should be taught from an early age. So should we instill into our children the true meaning of the different forms of government and teach them what liberty really is and how you fight for it effectively. And we should warn them about the simple ideological traps and common emotional pitfalls for which we must be ever vigilant.

But we don't teach them these things because a majority of Americans let the federal government decide what their children should know.

This is also why a test could never work.

The only way to make such a test fair is to have input into it organized on a large scale. You need to know gather everyone's opinions, collate the data, and have some method to enforce the test on a country-wide level.

Why! What you need is some sort of government bureaucr-

Hey! Isn't the government the very entity that is responsible for the general ignorance of the voters? Oops.

Jon

EDIT:Oops!

[edit on 6.18.2009 by Voxel]



new topics




 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join