Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Best form of Government

Posted May 21, '13 at 7:11am

partydevil

partydevil

5,087 posts

It's still undemocratic

how so?
everyone is able to go for the 2.0 vote if they want to.

I still see problems with who is going to correct your answers and how.

there are many tests you need to complete before you are able/allowed to do something. why would this be different?

The only way to counter ignorance, is once again education.

indeed.
we could trigger people to educate themselves if we reward them whit something for educating themself. in this case a higher voting value.

But as soon as someones vote is worth more than someone elses vote, it's not really democratic anymore.

it's as democratic as a stockholders meeting.

 

Posted May 21, '13 at 7:26am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

how so?
everyone is able to go for the 2.0 vote if they want to.

Because some people are natural *******es. Because it is possible to purposely send voters to classes such that they can get the 2 votes. Because some parties in some countries are supported by the poorer and less educated strata of society, making it unfair.

 

Posted May 21, '13 at 2:25pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,087 posts

Because some people are natural *******es.

isn't that what the tests are for? get a government brought together by people who know about what is best. (probably could have said that better, but i lack the right words now)

everyones opinion is imported, but not everyones opinion is equally worthy.

Because it is possible to purposely send voters to classes such that they can get the 2 votes.

it was indeed my idea to send people to free classes. giving everyone the option to go for the 2.0 vote if they want to.
meanwhile they educate themself about politics because they want to be heard. exactly what we want to happen.

Because some parties in some countries are supported by the poorer and less educated strata of society, making it unfair.

i c how it's a problem in countries where education is not self-evident.
what about the countries where this is not a problem? enough left i guess...

 

Posted May 21, '13 at 2:46pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

it was indeed my idea to send people to free classes. giving everyone the option to go for the 2.0 vote if they want to.

One person's vote does not carry more intrinsic value than another's because of factual knowledge.

However, I still do support the idea of demonstrating you at least know what the hell a tax is, or how basic economics work.

Everyone should be able to vote, yet we don't allow children to. Why is that? Because they probably won't make an informed decision. But here's the kicker. Age does not equate responsibility, knowledge, or the ability to think critically. There are plenty of people who are 18+ that are immature and ignorant of basic things. Why should they be allowed to vote, when a great many children are not, on the criteria of being "underage?"

No, adults vote because they're expected to be informed. Yet we take no measures to have people be informed. There is no required politics class, economics class, or even logic class to graduate from high school. Hell, you don't even have to have a high school diploma to vote. The closest we have is a government class, which really only teaches the three branches and basic constitutional knowledge.

tl;dr, Having people know what the **** they're talking about is common sense. People who don't know anything should first learn, not skew the process with utterly uninformed/ignorant viewpoints. Everyone has the right to give their input, but if we're going to argue that, children should be allowed to vote as well, because in all actuality, they're just as able to give an opinion as any adult. They fall into the party lines of their parents, who fell into the party lines of their parents, and we get nowhere.

Hence we actually do something about it all and stop acting like age has anything to do with the matter.

 

Posted May 21, '13 at 5:12pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,943 posts

Knight

everyones opinion is imported, but not everyones opinion is equally worthy.

Yes, everyones opinion is of equal value. The contrary to that would be some kind of elitism.

Besides, all those tests are too easily manipulable.

i c how it's a problem in countries where education is not self-evident.
what about the countries where this is not a problem? enough left i guess...

Here in Switzerland, there's one party holding like a quarter of all votes, it's probably the richest party (donations and who knows what else) and could finance any course or test for their voters, giving themselves even more weight. We already have debates going on about how they can pay much more election posters for their initiatives than other parties, such a test thing won't pass here.

 

Posted May 22, '13 at 7:54am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

isn't that what the tests are for? get a government brought together by people who know about what is best. (probably could have said that better, but i lack the right words now)

everyones opinion is imported, but not everyones opinion is equally worthy.

I would actually tend to agree with this point, and though we label it elitism, entrusting the voting of a government and politics and policies to every Tom **** and Harry seems at best to breed a sense of apprehension. Yet, in the end, in the name of equality and fairness, since after all, some people are smarter because they had a better education, we can't trash and smash democracy.

One person's vote does not carry more intrinsic value than another's because of factual knowledge.

I would tend to think it does. A person who knows about policies is better able to vote, and his vote holds more meaning, i.e it was made with a more level headed decision, than a person who is unaware, and votes based on hearsay.

it was indeed my idea to send people to free classes. giving everyone the option to go for the 2.0 vote if they want to.
meanwhile they educate themself about politics because they want to be heard. exactly what we want to happen.

But not everyone has the chance to go to the classes. Some people slog their socks off day and night just to survive. And what if the teachers are politically motivated? What if they are unable to possess the relevant material to educate themselves? It's hard enough getting people to educate themselves politically, and to impart the message that voting is a privilege, (do something about that responsibility!) without adding more to the mix.

i c how it's a problem in countries where education is not self-evident.
what about the countries where this is not a problem? enough left i guess...

It still is a problem even in the US, where the education system in certain areas is plain horrendous.

 

Posted May 22, '13 at 3:00pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,087 posts

It still is a problem even in the US, where the education system in certain areas is plain horrendous.

were narrowing down on countries i c. let's just say then that i would see it work in these countries. whit a average literacy rate of 98.8% and a average of 80.2% people have a high school degree. i think there is a good enough amount of education available to make it useful. the left over 1.2% i would call that individual cases that fall outside the boat. on every law there is a downside for someone. they still can vote tho.

And what if the teachers are politically motivated? What if they are unable to possess the relevant material to educate themselves?

the i-net is such a wonderful thing. ^^
71.% of the people in the above 10 countries have i-net at home.
the rest (on exception of individual cases.) are able to go online somewhere.
we only have to come up whit something for the elderly i guess...   

It's hard enough getting people to educate themselves politically, and to impart the message that voting is a privilege, (do something about that responsibility!) without adding more to the mix.

maybe this adding would trigger them to actually go and do it. (thats what my bet is on)

I would tend to think it does. A person who knows about policies is better able to vote, and his vote holds more meaning, i.e it was made with a more level headed decision, than a person who is unaware, and votes based on hearsay.

i c you found the right words that i lost earlier. ^^

I would actually tend to agree with this point, and though we label it elitism,

i'm new to elitism, from the little ive readed now. it seems elitism is more like we have a set group of people that will do the voting etc. and it's hard to get in. as for the idea i had, everyone could get higher up.

after all, some people are smarter because they had a better education,

lessons and classes could be given outside the normal education system.

we can't trash and smash democracy.

but we can try to tweak it, right?

===========================
sorry for the other 2. i g2g now.

 

Posted May 22, '13 at 3:18pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

A little late, but i think a Monarchy is the way do go.  Having too many people in power, who don't agree, is dangerous for a nation.  It's how it's always been done, and you guys know how I like traditional things.

 

Posted May 22, '13 at 3:29pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

but i think a Monarchy is the way do go

A monarchy is ridiculous. While I have no real problem with a single, capable, moral, good-willed person leading, there are no checks and balances to make certain such a person rules. The way power is passed on as well is stupid and ensures that some idiot eventually gets the throne.

 

Posted May 23, '13 at 11:05am

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

A monarchy is ridiculous. While I have no real problem with a single, capable, moral, good-willed person leading, there are no checks and balances to make certain such a person rules. The way power is passed on as well is stupid and ensures that some idiot eventually gets the throne.
Idk, I think Clinton, Bush, and Obama were a few idiots.  Also, Congress passes some stupid laws.

 
Reply to Best form of Government

You must be logged in to post a reply!