If ALL global leaders were voted on by global population, will this help bring peace.

I was wondering if there was a nonfraudulent way for countries to globally electronic vote for leaders in different countries would this help. Of course there would have to be programming involved to keep the population% and demographics of the voters in mind. But in the end US folx can vote on Libya leader and Libya folx can vote on Russian leader, Mexican voters can vote on Uk leaders Australia folx can vote on China leader. So in the end there is are global opinions made of potential leaders and how others would view them. This would be primary vote secondary vote would include more influence from local voters.

What you think would it help? Or would it still cause problems?

Le me know

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Like Sundance replied to Mr. Cassidy. "You just keep thinkin there Butch. That's what you're good at."

Actually that was a complement. Though, I believe, not possible, the suggestion does offer a window into your optimism at finding solutions to world problems. We all need to guide ourselves to thinking this way.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


if it works they wont do it. they only do things that a difficult wastefull stupid ignorant etc.. if it smart and will work you can through that idea nout the window first.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


LOL will do
Thanks

reply to post by bmorebirdflu


Thank you and sorry you feel this way. Seems many feel like this that if good finds a way to assist its always darkend by the evol elites. SAD, GOD HELP THIS EARTH..

Not with the current group of humanoids! The majority of people can't even figure out how our own system works let alone one on the other side of the world.

As much as we all like to embrace the "we are one" mantra, the truth is that we aren't one. We are a huge collection of vastly different people with different ideals, cultures, etc. It doesn't mean we can't get along and embrace our differences, but the thought of a general majority determining all the worlds leaders makes me want to throw up personally. It would quickly begin to eradicate the very differences that make these cultures important and unique!

Wouldn't we also first have to supply electricity to most of the world before even comprehending such a system? Keep in mind that there are countries like Madagascar that are extremely primitive in most areas. And what about Africa?

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


I think that would still cause problems. What if, for example, the entire population of the UK or US voted for a person that a small country (like Monaco) did not like and who they did not vote for? I know you said about primary/secondary votes, but there is a huge population gap between the countries

Oh my word S&F I was speaking about this the other night... but my visitors were too drunnk to listen! HA ha...

I started to speak about this but then realised that ... well I'll just post the link to what I looked at.




It was one of my tree huggy moments where I thought I had nailed world peace...

Namaste xx

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Not with the current group of humanoids! The majority of people can't even figure out how our own system works let alone one on the other side of the world.

This is a BIG PROBLEM.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
It would quickly begin to eradicate the very differences that make these cultures important and unique!

I considered that thats why I said the primary would be the world vote and the secondary would be based on local population. Its just a way for the world to see if a particular leader in another country is liked or hated.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Wouldn't we also first have to supply electricity to most of the world before even comprehending such a system? Keep in mind that there are countries like Madagascar that are extremely primitive in most areas. And what about Africa?

Yes, we need to use tesla energies in these locations to bring them up to pace with rest of world for their votes count =. So place solar-tesla-windmill-hydro facilities in these remote locations... We should of been brought the remaining 3rd world brotheren up to the rest of the world pace. That never made sense to me. To leave them behind why everyone else is eating microwave popcoorn and watching cable tv... Unless, overlords HAVE to keep a certain amount of population left behind.

Thanks

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


The greatest sham played on the people of the world is that democracy equals freedom. The rhetoric is that the ability to elect ones own "leaders" is the benchmark of freedom, but the reality is that unalienable rights are the benchmark of freedom. All people have certain unalienable rights, including but not exclusively, the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These are not theories, they are observable laws. The right to life is self evident, and peoples right to exist is not derived by grant of the state, it exists with or without government. All rights exist with or without government and when people respect each other rights, this is justice.

Governments...just governments...are created by people to defend the rights of the individual, and in the absence of justice, to offer some sort of redress of grievance to somehow balance what has been unbalanced. When government officials are working towards this end then government is just. When governments take it upon themselves to determine what rights belong to the people and what rights do not belong to the people an injustice has taken place. Under democracies it is too easy for the majority, or even a well oiled minority, to disregard the rights of individuals and vote for some other form of "society" where "governmental social control" is counted as law.

Law is not control, law is merely the description of phenomena that happens in certain circumstances. The law of gravity does not prevent someone from jumping off a cliff, nor does the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevent closed systems or entropy. These laws simply describe phenomena, and so too do the laws of individual rights. Regardless of the government that has been designed - and be rest assured that governments are artifices, unlike real living breathing human beings - if the rights of the individual are not respected then it matters not how honest the elections were to place "leaders" in office to disregard these rights, the government has become a tyranny.

People get the government they deserve, and until people can learn to govern themselves then petty tyrants will continue to take the advantage of this and use the artifice of government to advance their own political ambitions. This has been the way it is since time immemorial, and this is the way it will continue to be. The very existence of government is a profound indictment on humanity, and reveals the tragic disharmony that exists between us. It will not be harmonious until we learn to respect each others rights, live and let live and cause no harm. When we learn to be gentle in doing good, then we will come closer to the harmony that we will all recognize as justice.

Isn't the NWO trying to wrangle something like this in terms of a one world government?

There are no global leaders as of yet, and no global population. There are organizations like the UN but not every nation in the world is a member so that can't count towards the idea you are putting forth.


I don't think it would bring peace. Unless there was also one world culture, one language, one belief system different people will never be able to agree upon anything just because different cultures value different things

In order to keep order the one world government would have to enforce tolerance and subdue any protest in order to "keep the peace," and mold a homogeneous society.

Plus, as with any government, there will be corruption and profiteering because power corrupts and people are human.

In the end though, if there is an NWO and they are trying to make a one world government, then you'll get the system you described.

reply to post by Griffo


Yes this is where TRUST WORTHY computer programming is needed, to write the population local date to work with population global data. So say a country with ex. 500 people and another with 1,000,000 voted the population of 1,000,000 would only count towards a certain ratio of the smaller population. As would the reverse be with the smaller country voting for a bigger country. The ratio would change to assist smaller population intent. Again MAJOR COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING NEEDED. The end result should be civilian safe from wars from weak leaders ruining their lifes give or take.

Thanks

reply to post by yzzyUK


I checked that out and had to save it thanks. Also I think as humans continue to evolve it will be possible to all act like family and fix these major causing minor issues of segragation.

Namaste

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Does that sort of computer programming exist? Even so, you just have to look at the mess we've made in the middle east to see why this is a bad idea. We thought we were doing them a favour. We were wrong.

It would also mean that everyone in the world would have to know every political party/politician; quite a lot of people don't know their own countries politicians. In the end you'd be getting people voting for someone they have no idea about, which could lead to troubling consequences.

What is happening around the world, nation states collapsing into centralized unions, markets outwitting planners, war, citizens rising up against government, is all a result of our "great leaders".

Forgive my cynicism, I think you are well meaning, but most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom while trying to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own.

If mankind is truly concerned about leading meaningful lives then our goal needs to be freedom from the arbitrary rule of others. PERIOD

There are legitimate uses for human institutions but continuation of faceless bureaucracys interested only in centralized planning, theft, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, greed waste, while at the same time converting the world into a nursery of policemen and self-serving busybodies does not parallel with human happiness. How our current machination can be seen as a power for good should be beyond anyone with even a faint understanding of history.

The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men. Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people.- John F Kennedy

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I agree with many of the points you made in reference that yes the people may have good intentions in mind of who they vote for but behind the scenes it still can be a discomfort simular to todays discomforts felt politically when believing that the one voted for cares for the population that voted them in. I also feel there is potential if this was ran correct from within to outside. No sneaky hiding unknowns running the scene from behind if they here then make em part of it or lose em. This thread was inspired by the now Lybia conflict going on and others in the past so I wondered is there a way to help the people so they dont gotta hear and deal with bombs overhead due to them having bad dictatorship in their local.

Thanks

I would rather go with the Distributed Democracy on global scale. Presidents are not really needed, representatives are most of the times NOT representing the population but themselves. If I was a super-dictator to make a change before I quit being a dictator ,I would divide the planet in counties of 50 000 people per county. They would assign one speaker to participate in their behalf , however not having the right to take decisions in their behalf. So people should be allowed to vote what their speaker will do in regards to various legislations coming around. This would go on on national scale (replacing parliament and senate) . Same people should also participate on matters regarding global issues affecting every nation. The votes should be open for permanent audit, specialised teams should verify the integrity of data using surveys. The only problem to appear - different levels of educations and even IQ, not all people are the same. People with less education will be more likely to be manipulated. However is still better to have 50 000 idiots than 1 psyco genius taking over..

Originally posted by Crunkman919
Isn't the NWO trying to wrangle something like this in terms of a one world government?

I think some want a rulership in place to assist the 1 to controll and are trying to set it up for that 1.

Originally posted by Crunkman919
I don't think it would bring peace. Unless there was also one world culture, one language, one belief system different people will never be able to agree upon anything just because different cultures value different things

But see it would be encouraged to remain the same advance if you wish. But yes to bring technology up to global standard there would be a need for good communication but I dont see need for 1 language-1 belief system-1culture. Let those all remain but atleast the leaders would get prevoted on globally before some sneak turncoat who will do as they are told gets in power and sends his nation towards hell, why they hide and play war games with fake copies or look alikes and retire on a remote island untouched with past leaders who have done simular activities.

Originally posted by Crunkman919
In the end though, if there is an NWO and they are trying to make a one world government, then you'll get the system you described.

Yea but it wouldnt be 1 rule just a united vote standard. this way no Russia China US bickering 1 hopes.

Thanks

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

Does that sort of computer programming exist?

Not sure?

Originally posted by Griffo
It would also mean that everyone in the world would have to know every political party/politician; quite a lot of people don't know their own countries politicians. In the end you'd be getting people voting for someone they have no idea about, which could lead to troubling consequences.

Well everyone in the world no but those who uprise at unfair politics and study political activities yes. And booklets should be available in voting locations electronic book providing all data in local language of potential leader. Not attempting to disturb world just help with issue.

Thanks

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

To leave them behind why everyone else is eating microwave popcoorn and watching cable tv... Unless, overlords HAVE to keep a certain amount of population left behind.

Well, see, there you have it. A lot of people might not think microwave popcorn is such a good idea. Same with cable. But of course the western way has to prevail, huh?

Turn it around. There are more Chinese and East Indians than any other group. Do you really want them deciding your leader??

See, I've thought about this before back when the Yanks were electing Bush over and over. Then I wished I had a say in their Presidential election. I soon realized tho that I wouldn't want the tables turned.