We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Best form of Government
| 141 | 22803 |
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?
- 141 Replies
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?.
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?
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 ^^)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!