nah, thats feudalism. Democracy IS a democracy when stupid people have the chance to vote.
but these people are controlled and swayed by propaganda and the media..therefore the rich and powerful people (how create and control the propaganda) really get to make their vote....its a false sense of security that we all have the freedom to choose our vote....
but these people are controlled and swayed by propaganda and the media..therefore the rich and powerful people (how create and control the propaganda) really get to make their vote....its a false sense of security that we all have the freedom to choose our vote....
They just take the role of mom and dad when stupid people grow into adulthood.
but these people are controlled and swayed by propaganda and the media..therefore the rich and powerful people (how create and control the propaganda) really get to make their vote....its a false sense of security that we all have the freedom to choose our vote....
Not just the rich and powerful, Darb. The Lefties are just as good, if not better, at propaganda to get votes. It's already starting with comparisons of Hudak to Harris here in Ontario. Heinlein had a great series of quotations dealing with the various types of government . . . I'll see if I can scrounge them up.
By the by, I have no problem with a simple "skill test" to qualify people to vote. Mind you, I have no problem with the system as it stands right now, either.
Not just the rich and powerful, Darb. The Lefties are just as good, if not better, at propaganda to get votes. It's already starting with comparisons of Hudak to Harris here in Ontario. Heinlein had a great series of quotations dealing with the various types of government . . . I'll see if I can scrounge them up.
By the by, I have no problem with a simple "skill test" to qualify people to vote. Mind you, I have no problem with the system as it stands right now, either.
yes scrounge them out. not sure what lefties is...conservative? anyways its generally understood politicians are fueled by sponsors and business. I know here in bc there is a large scandal going on selling our public companies to private investors (bc rail I think it was).
A simple skills test would be an example but prob wouldn't quite solve it and may not help....
So who defines "stupid"? I mean, other than Mr. Gump . . .
this is very harder to define however it is nowhere near as important as the realization the we and especially the Americans, the way our countries are run now, do not live under a democratic government
You mean under your system, I don't get to vote anymore? awww..
me neither im afraid....or perhaps by some fluke of system we do..actually i think the whole of bc is out.....actually we don't vote here anyways....to much 420 time...
this is very harder to define however it is nowhere near as important as the realization the we and especially the Americans, the way our countries are run now, do not live under a democratic government
As long as each individual voter makes their own choice, it is STILL a democracy. It does not matter how easily influenced said voter is. That is not how a democracy is defined.
Generally speaking, when someone is bitching about something being undemocratic, what they really mean is, "my side is opposed to this, but cannot make a valid argument against it".
I'm all for banning idiots from voting, but we can't call it a democracy anymore.
Living in B.C., it would prevent our retarded premier Gordon Campbell from getting a goddamn THIRD term! In the first year of his candicy, he had a 92% approval rate. Now he has 9%. The biggest problem we face is that the only other person to vote for is Carol James with the NDP....blech. I should get into politics.
Oh well, mind as well throw my vote away, GO GREEN PARTY GO!
By the by, I have no problem with a simple "skill test" to qualify people to vote. Mind you, I have no problem with the system as it stands right now, either.
Just like the DMV and issuing licences'? We already know how well this works....>:D
As long as each individual voter makes their own choice, it is STILL a democracy. It does not matter how easily influenced said voter is. That is not how a democracy is defined.
yes i unerstand this and we could trip over the words. my point is its not a 'fair' process nor are people 'free' to make their votes. although you may be free to choose...the moron beside me who thinks we should just 'nuke' all the iraqi's or that so and so should go back to their own country...does not have a freedom of choice, they have a lack of education (provided by the government) and are completely brainwashed.
Generally speaking, when someone is bitching about something being undemocratic, what they really mean is, "my side is opposed to this, but cannot make a valid argument against it".
Served their country....How? Define what that is for me?
Those who provide foster care for children of this country?
Those who volunteer to improve conditions for those around them?
etc etc...
Or just those who join up to defend the country in a military capacity?
Please don't misunderstand, I am not advocating . . . merely throwing out talking points.
I am firmly of the belief that the only moral premise on which to base a society is "Women and children first". Everything else that we adorn our civilization with can, and MUST be jettisoned should the situation call for it.
i think the point of the story was they risked their lives very directly in order to just get a vote...wouldn't put it past the American government
Read Starship Trooper for a better explanantion but, basically, only those who have put themselves in harms way to defend "Society" have an understanding of the threats to, and value of, that "Society". Thus, they should be the ones who determine it's direction. In the case of the book, only those who served in the Military could vote.
The point of the story wasn't merely JUST to vote. However, this does bring up a good point.
Voting...right...or priviledge?
If people were to earn the right to vote, do you think it may have a more meaningful impact on the way our society operates as a whole?
not if the system is inherently flawed...many don't have faith in the system so they wouldn't even bother, yet these may be smart and moral good people who realize that the majority vote is held by the people who control the propaghanda (which goes beyond election campaigns.
not if the system is inherently flawed...many don't have faith in the system so they wouldn't even bother, yet these may be smart and moral good people who realize that the majority vote is held by the people who control the propaghanda (which goes beyond election campaigns.
I think that's my point exactly. Those who do vote currently really have no idea why or for what they're voting for, they simply put their X in the spot they choose, without any consideration of what their vote could mean.
Case in point. Saddam Hussien was voted into power originally. By a landslide if memory serves correctly. People voted who really didn't know WHAT they were voting for. I'm sure they would never have voted the way they did originally if they actually considered what their vote could mean by giving this particular individual that kind of authourity.
Your original OP asked should stupid people by allowed to vote. I think you have to amend that to something like this...Should anyone be allowed to vote who doesn't understand what giving the power to one individual or group can do? Personally, I am half way convinced that in order to vote, you should be taught the why's, how's, and learn to think for yourself as well as others PRIOR to putting your X on a ballot, and honestly, refresher courses should be mandatory. Our current education system does a half hazard training in this area, but only to selected few. I believe it should be mandatory and yes, I believe you should be licensed to cast a vote.
Comments
but these people are controlled and swayed by propaganda and the media..therefore the rich and powerful people (how create and control the propaganda) really get to make their vote....its a false sense of security that we all have the freedom to choose our vote....
They just take the role of mom and dad when stupid people grow into adulthood.
Not just the rich and powerful, Darb. The Lefties are just as good, if not better, at propaganda to get votes. It's already starting with comparisons of Hudak to Harris here in Ontario. Heinlein had a great series of quotations dealing with the various types of government . . . I'll see if I can scrounge them up.
By the by, I have no problem with a simple "skill test" to qualify people to vote. Mind you, I have no problem with the system as it stands right now, either.
mom and dad learned their morals from this 'democratic' government.....
You mean under your system, I don't get to vote anymore? awww..
You do know that those ballot boxes are just shredders right?
yes scrounge them out. not sure what lefties is...conservative? anyways its generally understood politicians are fueled by sponsors and business. I know here in bc there is a large scandal going on selling our public companies to private investors (bc rail I think it was).
A simple skills test would be an example but prob wouldn't quite solve it and may not help....
this is very harder to define however it is nowhere near as important as the realization the we and especially the Americans, the way our countries are run now, do not live under a democratic government
me neither im afraid....or perhaps by some fluke of system we do..actually i think the whole of bc is out.....actually we don't vote here anyways....to much 420 time...
yes and i am the ninja turtle of democracy...
As long as each individual voter makes their own choice, it is STILL a democracy. It does not matter how easily influenced said voter is. That is not how a democracy is defined.
Generally speaking, when someone is bitching about something being undemocratic, what they really mean is, "my side is opposed to this, but cannot make a valid argument against it".
I'm all for banning idiots from voting, but we can't call it a democracy anymore.
Living in B.C., it would prevent our retarded premier Gordon Campbell from getting a goddamn THIRD term! In the first year of his candicy, he had a 92% approval rate. Now he has 9%. The biggest problem we face is that the only other person to vote for is Carol James with the NDP....blech. I should get into politics.
Oh well, mind as well throw my vote away, GO GREEN PARTY GO!
Just like the DMV and issuing licences'? We already know how well this works....>:D
ba zing!
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million people are wiser than one person. How's that again? I missed something . . .
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one person is wiser than a million people. Lets play that one over again, too. Who decides?
Served their country....How? Define what that is for me?
Those who provide foster care for children of this country?
Those who volunteer to improve conditions for those around them?
etc etc...
Or just those who join up to defend the country in a military capacity?
Please don't misunderstand, I am not advocating . . . merely throwing out talking points.
I am firmly of the belief that the only moral premise on which to base a society is "Women and children first". Everything else that we adorn our civilization with can, and MUST be jettisoned should the situation call for it.
this flew over my head....are we saying his definition don't say who decides?
do we believe a million are smarter than one? because i think thats wrong...at least in the context of the government/people division
i think the point of the story was they risked their lives very directly in order to just get a vote...wouldn't put it past the American government
No misunderstanding dear Milo, as I am just doing the same
The point of the story wasn't merely JUST to vote. However, this does bring up a good point.
Voting...right...or priviledge?
If people were to earn the right to vote, do you think it may have a more meaningful impact on the way our society operates as a whole?
Read Starship Trooper for a better explanantion but, basically, only those who have put themselves in harms way to defend "Society" have an understanding of the threats to, and value of, that "Society". Thus, they should be the ones who determine it's direction. In the case of the book, only those who served in the Military could vote.
No, he's asking who decides which 1 person is more intelligent. Heinlein's whole premise with these two quotes is that both ideas are equally absurd.
not if the system is inherently flawed...many don't have faith in the system so they wouldn't even bother, yet these may be smart and moral good people who realize that the majority vote is held by the people who control the propaghanda (which goes beyond election campaigns.
I think that's my point exactly. Those who do vote currently really have no idea why or for what they're voting for, they simply put their X in the spot they choose, without any consideration of what their vote could mean.
Case in point. Saddam Hussien was voted into power originally. By a landslide if memory serves correctly. People voted who really didn't know WHAT they were voting for. I'm sure they would never have voted the way they did originally if they actually considered what their vote could mean by giving this particular individual that kind of authourity.
Your original OP asked should stupid people by allowed to vote. I think you have to amend that to something like this...Should anyone be allowed to vote who doesn't understand what giving the power to one individual or group can do? Personally, I am half way convinced that in order to vote, you should be taught the why's, how's, and learn to think for yourself as well as others PRIOR to putting your X on a ballot, and honestly, refresher courses should be mandatory. Our current education system does a half hazard training in this area, but only to selected few. I believe it should be mandatory and yes, I believe you should be licensed to cast a vote.