Against Democracy?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Greetings,

Ofcourse everyone has their own opinion on politics,

But what political structure, in theory, would make sense the most?


In some countries, people are allowed to cast a vote on who they think should be their country's leader. On first thought, this is logic, and is truly fair to the people, in a democracy. But is it in the best interest of the people? Does every man and woman able to cast a vote know what the country needs, and what not?

You have those educated, who are able to make a balanced vote, because they know what is going on, and they know who they see fit for leadership. I believe you either lead, or you follow.The people who follow are the problem.

A situation:

1.ten 18 year old's cast their vote on candidate number 1, because he looks cool, and he sounded awesome when giving a speech at school

2. nine political experts cast their vote on candidate number 2, because they know through study and experience this is who the community is better off with.

3. Candidate number 1 has won the vote, because he has more votes.


I think not everybody, in theory, should be entitled to cast a (full) vote. Maybe partial votes should be introduced for those not sufficienly educated on the political parties, and the people's best interests. Maybe one has to pass a test, which includes knowledge about politcal parties, their countries financial situation, and more.

Now everyone's opinion is worth the same as anyone else's. Nobody experiences the world exacly the way someone else does, and is therefor entitled to their own opinion, and a vote. But is everyone's opinion, an intelligent opinion? Does everyone having a vote even have a rudimentary understanding of what position their country/community is in? I think not, and it is this reason that i think not everyone's vote should be valued the same as anyone else's. Based on test scores, and plain knowledge and intelligence, one should be given a certificate that entitles him/her to a full or partial vote. A partial vote could be a 1/3 the value of a full vote, or even lower, should that adequatly reflect the test scores.

Would such a system make sense?

My english grammar is not the best,

cyberjedi




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
If you feed at the government trough, you should not get a say in how full the trough is to be.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
This problem that you presented so well is why the "Electoral College" was instituted.

After the government was formed the PTB decided that the "people" did not always know best so they decided to take matters into their own hands to ensure the best candidate was elected.

With current (and past) voter fraud accusations it is a very questionable method at best in my opinion.

Some history of the electoral college:

In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

And I think we all remember what happened in 2000.

In addition, there have been quite a few elections in which a few dozen thousand votes could have been switched in key states and changed the outcome of the election: Kennedy beat Nixon 303 to 219 in the EC, but got barely more than a hundred thousand popular votes more, and Nixon beat Humphrey 301 to 191, but got only half a million more votes. Nixon could have won Texas and Illinois without winning the popular vote, and Humphrey could have done the same with Missouri, New Jersey, and Ohio.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by cyberjedi
 


why would I take a test to learn about political parties which were not apart of the original Constitution?

let's see.. the Republican Party is known as the Grand Ol' Party which was founded as the Anti-Masonic Wigger Party which was spearheaded by Abraham Lincoln who set free money in the form of Greenbacks from the Banksters charging Interest on Fiat Fractional Reserve Debt based monetary system.. the Mr President was shot & killed.

the Democratic Party is of the little guy & has turned into a socialist fascist disgrace also.. but had a shining light of hope in President John F Kennedy who who set free money in the form of Greenbacks from the Banksters charging Interest on Fiat Fractional Reserve Debt based monetary system.. the Mr President was shot & killed.

can I vote now? Independent now? Green Party? Peace & Freedom?

"I was not a party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them." George Washington to Jefferson 1796

let's just return to land owners only vote.. ya know Land Lords.. who pay tribute to higher status and properly titled powers ordained by some watery tart with a sword at the direction of God ...



but seriously now, this has been discussed deeply by greater men than I in the Federalist Papers..of which you should read to understand the slippery slope of tyranny you are suggesting in your post..

We the People, are within a properly termed "perfectly democratical" and/or "strictly republic" form of Government, as set down into the Constitution by the founding fathers with checks & balances ..

---if the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it Constitutionally..

--Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united, the EXECUTIVE power would also make itself absolute, and the government end in tyranny..

-- Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the citizen's would then have no permanent security of his or her person and/or property


How about we just try to have Government run as prescribed by laws derived from lessons learned long ago..

and leave the choosing of who is eligible to vote to the totalitarian socialist tyrants to whom our Constitution stands as a painful reminder of Freedom shining brightly, blinding those who would do it harm..

end the corruption within..

"Lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender" - Thomas Jefferson 1816



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by cyberjedi
 


let's see.. the Republican Party is known as the Grand Ol' Party which was founded as theAnti-Masonic Wigger Party which was spearheaded by Abraham Lincoln who set free money in the form of Greenbacks from the Banksters charging Interest on Fiat Fractional Reserve Debt based monetary system.. the Mr President was shot & killed.


Is the bold and underlined term something that was used during the time period, or is your racism showing?


After a Little research I found out it was an auctual party title...
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
edit on 17-3-2012 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
1

log in

join