Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Best form of Government

Posted May 17, '13 at 8:52pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Yes but they, the Romans, Iran, France, and many others are Republics or were Republics at one time. All had large armies.

So did the USSR.

Correlation /= Causation.

Well, most of the populace are just misinformed, and they simply vote for the one that promised better.

This has more to do with the two-party system idiocy than anything else.

It's simpler to just allow a select few to vote,

Who decides those select few?

Noble Families

...? What?

 

Posted May 17, '13 at 9:23pm

blk2860

blk2860

3,686 posts

Kasic wrote:

...? What?

That's what nicho said:

[quote-nichodemus]The Romans gave a select few the right to vote, Renaissance era republics like Genoa and Venice did the same. A privileged few noble families voted.

Anyway, the other things you said:

Kasic wrote:

So did the USSR.

Correlation /= Causation.

Unless I misunderstand, you're agreeing with me. (Does Silent Cheer.)

Kasic wrote:

Who decides those select few?

I suppose there could be a test you have to to take every election. Like about the Candidates, their stances, etc. You have to take it there, and you will be searched (to an extent) for anything that can allow you to cheat. 85% Correct or higher allows you the ability to vote.

-Spirit

 

Posted May 17, '13 at 9:24pm

blk2860

blk2860

3,686 posts

Errr... I put  - instead of =. I also forgot the second Quote sign. Fail on my part.

-Spirit

 

Posted May 17, '13 at 9:36pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

That's what nicho said:

Oh, I thought you were saying we had Noble Families in the US.

Unless I misunderstand, you're agreeing with me. (Does Silent Cheer.)

You misunderstand. A Republic does not automatically guarantee a large army, nor does not being a Republic preclude a nation from having a large army.

It has nothing to do with the matter.

I suppose there could be a test you have to to take every election.

While I agree that some kind of test to make sure people know what the hell they're talking about isn't a bad idea, the conditions you put forth are not so good. First off, it shouldn't be a test on the candidates, but political functionings in general. It also shouldn't be every election, as that would be -way- too intensive.

 

Posted May 17, '13 at 11:20pm

blk2860

blk2860

3,686 posts

Every 6 years, then.

-Spirit

 

Posted May 18, '13 at 4:12am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Every 6 years, then.

...where did 6 years even come from?

No, a one time test you have to pass, which you can retake until you know the information would be best. A voter's license, which shows that you are able to gather knowledge from provided sources and accurately summarize points and positions, along with basic economic, political, and government terms. Viewpoints would not be judged, only comprehension of the material available, proving that you are capable of making an informed decision and are aware of various aspects involved.

Instead of just blindly voting for someone because of whatever party they belong to.

 

Posted May 18, '13 at 4:26am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

Well, most of the populace are just misinformed, and they simply vote for the one that promised better. Do Promises mean they will actually do these things? Just look at Obama's Terms for the answer. (Hint: No.) Besides, the Noble Families are usually better informed, and are less likely to cheat the system. What around half of the population want, the other half doesn't. It's simpler to just allow a select few to vote, as it gets rid of most of the corruption in the system. It's much easier to count the votes, and then the number of people to see if they match up, when you don't have to count up every single citizen.

Obama has helped a lot of people. Not everyone is going to benefit from a politician's policies, but it seems that enough did for him to get elected, and re-elected.

And no! Noble families being better informed? Where does that come from? Are they better educated? Most of the people in universities aren't nobles. Aside from the UK with its unique system of governance, are there any nations in the world where noble families actually play a huge role in politics? What about non-noble intellectuals? Are they to be excluded?

And no! How does letting fewer people vote get rid of corruption? Quite the opposite, it allows more corruption, and the easier perpetuation of corrupt practice, since only a small segment of society, and one that has very much in common, i.e, one of higher class, to vote and decide policies.

I would much rather a country go through the hassle of counting votes, to make things fair, than allow a small select few families vote on my future.

Yes. This is bad, for a large chunk of the voters have no idea what their electee stands for. Some of them even just look at the guy, and say "That guy looks cooler." and then vote for him. As I said earlier, it's easy to cheat the system.

Which is why, a democracy needs educated people. And people are generally becoming more educated. No system is perfect, and a democracy certainly has major flaws; but it is vastly superior to a system whereby only a select privileged few, just due to the good luck of having been born into a family with suitable blood can vote.

Yes but they, the Romans, Iran, France, and many others are Republics or were Republics at one time. All had large armies.

And so? As Kasic has said, correlation does not equate to causation. Empires had huge armies, think Roman, French, British and German. Should we revert to an empire?

Every 6 years, then

How does this even change things?.

 

Posted May 18, '13 at 7:19am

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

I suppose there could be a test you have to to take every election.

a problem here is that it isn't a democratic vote anymore.
there are many situations where people dont have the time or ability to learn for such a test.

maybe, just maybe. some way of creating a +vote would be a option.
everyone would be able to vote just like it is now. but you can make tests that will give you a +vote. you are free to do these tests. so if your not interested but still want to vote you just can.
but a tests of basic political knowledge would grant you to vote whit a 1.2 vote. - a tests of average political knowledge grants 1.4 - higher political knowledge 1.6 - expert 1.8 - master 2.0.

any thoughts of the idea?

 

Posted May 20, '13 at 1:07pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

no reply's? does that mean nothing is wrong whit it? =S
are there are no reasons to not go for this option? (well lets get it going then ^^)

 

Posted May 20, '13 at 4:19pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,994 posts

Knight

no reply's? does that mean nothing is wrong whit it? =S

Everything is wrong with tests. Even if you grant everyone a basic "vote value" plus the one obtained by the test. It's still undemocratic, and I still see problems with who is going to correct your answers and how.

The only way to counter ignorance, is once again education. Stress politics in school, not the candidates but the system and actual problems and stuff like that. You can also offer courses that people, also adults, can take out of interest. But as soon as someones vote is worth more than someone elses vote, it's not really democratic anymore.

 
Reply to Best form of Government

You must be logged in to post a reply!