ForumsWEPRBest form of Government

144 18867
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
164 posts
955

What is your opinion on the best form of government?
Most of us live in a democratic society, but there are many who are of the mind of Monarchy, Communism, or otherwise..
What do you think?

  • 144 Replies
JeffK3
offline
JeffK3
621 posts
970

Last I checked Obama (democrat) is trying really hard to make this nation socialist in government and economy.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

Last I checked Obama (democrat) is trying really hard to make this nation socialist in government and economy.


If that's true..he is doing a terrible job at it

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/302938_576905405664662_155469343_n.jpg
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,370

Last I checked Obama (democrat) is trying really hard to make this nation socialist in government and economy.


Ooooooo, giving out welfare is indeed socialist. Is it bad? No, it helps people. Is large amounts of welfare bad? Yes, look at Greece, or Spain or France with their absurd welfare programs. Is America approaching that level? No.

What Republicans need to realise, is that their ''rugged, self-reliant'' attitude towards economics does not always help people, and is indeed arrogant and selfish.

Furthermore, is socialism always a bane? No. Stop bandying the word around like it's an Unholy swear word. The UK's Labour Party, the Nordic States, France, Spain, amongst others are all Socialist. Are they abhorrent? No. They're great countries to live and work in.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

I mean, with Democracy, we get people cheating the system, voting multiple times for the same guy *Cough*Obama*Cough*, using different IDs, as people who have their names on ballots in the recent election, claim they never even voted.

You realize that the US is a republic, too, right?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,370

Republic, for sure. Look at Rome, the best empire that ever existed. (Okay, besides Egypt, but they were somewhat Republic.) I mean, with Democracy, we get people cheating the system, voting multiple times for the same guy *Cough*Obama*Cough*, using different IDs, as people who have their names on ballots in the recent election, claim they never even voted. Anyway, Rome was a Republic. Look at the Republic of China, having the largest army on Earth to date. Obviously, Republic is the best for having a Powerful nation. That is all I have to say for now.



A republic is simply a government where the body of people governing the nation are elected, and not inherited. It doesn't mean that the whole population has to vote. 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. That's it. Surely the best form of government? (No)

A democracy on the other hand, means that the whole populace, of a certain age can vote. The US is a democratic republic. Perhaps the terms Republican and Democrat Party confuse you, but it's better to learn the proper political terminology, rather than look like a complete maniacal and bigoted ideologue.

Also, bull**** at the Republic of China! (Assuming you mean PRC China) Having a Republic doesn't mean you have a large army. There's no correlation about having an elected body of government and the size of the military. Iran isn't a republic. NK isn't too. They have huge armies. San Marino, Malta, the Seychelles, are all republics, yet have puny armies.

Assuming you meant Taiwan having the largest army, either you're insane or not very well informed.
SectoidMedic
offline
SectoidMedic
166 posts
885

Democratic Socialism

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

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?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

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.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

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.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,370

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?.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

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?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

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 ^^)

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,719 posts
20,765

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.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

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.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,370

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.
Showing 91-105 of 144