h a l f b a k e r yIt's not a thing. It will be a thing.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
There could be a certain percentage reduction of a vote's weight based on time spent in jail or fee paid. Each ticket should reduce the weight of your vote by a certain percentage. This reduction would expire in a similar time that the crime would naturally go off the record.
Obviously which ever
society implemented this scheme would apply their values/ethics. These would change over time, much like our laws.
In addition to discouraging illegal activities, we should encourage other activities with the ethics quotient.
Perhaps the following "good activities" would result in the following increases in your vote's weight.
EDUCATION
High School Degree 5%
4 year degree 10%
Masters degree 15%
Doctoral Degree 20%
TEST SCORES
ACT Score above 25 5%
ACT Score above 30 10%
We could also weigh our votes proportionally to our knowledge about the candidates. A test could be given, with the voter's score qualifying them for different weights assigned to their votes. Perhaps 50 questions could be assigned for each candidate. Some questions may do with their backgrounds, and others would represent their stances on different policies.
IQ above 130 5%
SOCIALLY AWARE PROFESSIONS
Teachers 5%
Police 5%
COMMUNITY SERIVE
80 hrs/ year 5%
160 hrs/ year 10%
AGE
Those with more experience should get more of a vote. Perhaps an increase in your voting power by 2% for every decade lived. Children could vote, however their vote would count less, which is better than not at all.
ARGUMENTS:
On the one hand:
1. It might result in better policy.
2. If you have had a ticket for drunk driving, than it says that you care more about your needs than the needs of others.
3. It would allow criminals to take part in the election process, while still limiting their influence in the election. The punishment of not having the right to vote would be more tailored to fit the severity of the crime, where worse crimes result in lower weight to one's vote.
4. Those who contribute less to society should have their say deducted by an appropriate proportion
On the other hand:
1. It would make the election more complicated. (Response, computers could help with this).
MOST PROBABLE INTEREST OF THOSE WHO AGREE:
1. They want to impose their ethics (response: I do not want to impose my ethics. I think each society should).
MOST PROBABLE INTEREST OF THOSE WHO DISAGREE:
1. Simplicity (of our current system)
APPOSING PRINCIPLES:
1. Privacy
2. Equality
3. Faith in our current system
4. Faith in "the average voter"
COMON PRINCIPLES:
Books that agree:
1. A Tale of Two Cities (This shows the dangers of pure democracy)
2. Atlas Shrugged
Books that Disagree:
1. Books by Orwell (People never feel they have to explain, they just mention Orwell and think they won the arguement. I don't see how "the idea of the value of your vote on who is making the laws in your country being dependant on breaking the laws that they create" has anything to do with Orwel)
COMMON INTEREST:
APPOSING INTEREST:
One, Two, Three, Three...
http://www.fastlane...x.cgi?counting.html
My experiences of scrutineering the vote counting for a federal election in Australia [Detly, Mar 15 2005]
Overbaked
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overbaked/
As per [david scothern]'s anno [zen_tom, Mar 28 2005]
[link]
|
| |
Who decides what's ethical or not, and the relative "ethicality" of different things? Is being homosexual ethical? Is an aetheist more or less ethical than a Christian? Is it ethical to protest a war your country is in? There's just too much leeway for this to be misused to reduce the vote of certain groups simply to help ensure one party's success. |
|
| |
A lesser point is that ANY convicted felon loses the right to vote already, so to a certain extent this is already implmented. |
|
| |
the election process is not complicated enough already? |
|
| |
Any time anyone suggest that society should promote ethics you always hear people frantically scram, "but, but, but who's ethics?! Yours?!" |
|
| |
I said explicitly in the text of my idea, that only those things that resulted in prison time, or are against the law should be used. |
|
| |
The last time I checked no one has got prison time for being homosexual. |
|
| |
Can we all just agree that murder is unethical? Stealing a car is unethical. Rape is unethical. |
|
| |
Can we all agree that doing community service is ethical? Helping old ladies, picking up garbage. |
|
| |
Or did you even read past the summery of my idea? I think voting against an idea before you even read it is unethical. |
|
| |
If you would have read the text of my idea, you would have know that I mentioned that former fellons in the USA cannot vote. So like you "pointed out" we are allready taking away their vote. All I am saying is that we do it a little more fairly. All I'm saying is that the punishment should fit the sevarity of the crime. |
|
| |
Please read the first sentence in the first paragraph that says "In our current system some people are not allowed to vote like former felons and those who avoid paying taxes. |
|
| |
Re; "Is an aetheist more or less ethical than a Christian? Is it ethical to protest a war your country is in? There's just too much leeway for this to be misused to reduce the vote of certain groups simply to help ensure one party's success." Please read the 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph that says, "I can not think of anything besides convictions in a criminal court that should result in voting dilution." |
|
| |
Re: "the election process is not complicated enough already?" |
|
| |
We have computers that can do this sort of thing for large data bases. I guess it might cost a couple thousand dollers to higher a computer programer (lets say a state tried to do this first) to integrate voting records with the criminal records. |
|
| |
I was just thinking of the fiasco of an election in the USA - the one before last. |
|
| |
I guess your right. This would never work in the US the way we have things now, with punch cards, and all that stuff. I guess it would only work with computers, and that will probably be a long time before that happens... I think I saw someone else lament this problem, that you would have to maintain a list of how everyone voted, and we try to keep that private... I'm sorry if I sound defensive, when I step back and look at the idea, it would be hard to implement. |
|
| |
This is a good idea. I think the internet (a collective
memory) changes what it means to be an "individual"
enough so that our laws about individuals will have to
change too. But the laws are written in language, and
language and law have evolved together toward the
definition of individual that we have now. So we're sort of
in a quandry. |
|
| |
the fact that I have lived a pretty blameless life - the one parking ticket that I ever received was rescinded because it was wrongly issued - does not actually mean that I am in a superior position to vote wisely. politically I am pretty naive. |
|
| |
Let's weight everyone's vote according to their croissant/fishbone ratio. Obviously you couldn't vote without having a Halfbakery account, but that's ok. |
|
| |
//If you have had a ticket for drunk driving, than you care
more about your needs than the needs of others.// |
|
| |
Why does this render a person less worthy of voting? |
|
| |
They key point in democracy, as I understand it, is that
everyone has an equally weighted vote. Without this fact,
it is no longer democracy. If a country consists of
criminals, then they will elect a candidate approriate to
them. If society consists of idiots, they may elect someone
who will take advantage of them. This is what happens. |
|
| |
Anything else is simply someone dictating what they think
is good for the rest of their country. |
|
| |
[myclob] - In America, until the Supreme Court decided it
was unconstitutional, there were many state laws
prohibiting sodomy - in practice, enforcement of this law
was aimed solely at homosexuals. While that does not
make it a criminal offense, you can see how this is a
concern. |
|
| |
In certain countries, it is a criminal offence to be a Christian, for example. They're marginalised already without having their votes taken away too. |
|
| |
Consider that the government decides what is right and wrong, ie what should be an arrestable offence. This way, anybody who disagrees with the government will end up less able to vote them out. |
|
| |
I've never understood that US thing of convicted felons being unable to vote. What happened to "paying your debt to society"? The current US system (and this idea) seem to say "You've served your time, but we're going to penalise you for the rest of your life as well". |
|
| |
Indeed. Furthermore, under this scheme, somebody who had a conviction for driving their car 1mph above the speed limit would have their voting power reduced whilst a rabid, starey-eyed, frothing at the mouth terrorist who was held under house arrest (under the new UK anti-terror legislation) because they were a danger to society, small children and cute furry animals would suffer no such consequence as they would have been convicted of no crime. |
|
| |
Don't get me started on that bill [DrBob]. Grrrrr. |
|
| |
It was a little stiffling so I opened a window with some rap here. Read //replaced rap here referred to in next memo//.
Throw some damn electronic voting machine in with the felons and see what they do with it. |
|
| |
[mens] it's medication time again...
<edit: Not quite sure what [mens] was talking about, but he's edited it. Now it makes sense, even to my limited brain> |
|
| |
Aside from all other concerns, the ballot people have enough trouble counting up the ballots in the current system where one vote = one vote. Can you imagine the chaos if we had to start applying percentages to the tallies after the counts? |
|
| |
This is a weird idea insofar as intuitively it seems sound; surely those who contribute less to society should have their say deducted by an appropriate proportion. However, the idea is, when you think about it, a bit rubbish, even aside from the problems of implementation. |
|
| |
1. In many jurisdictions, convictions are deemed to have been extinguished after a set period of time; the offender is no longer required to declare the conviction, though they may be required to divulge, if asked. This idea, if I have read it correctly, means any offence means a permanent whittling of the democratic right.
2. There is no proposed mechanism for the calculation of the whittling percentages. One would assume that this would have to be dealt by the legislature. A major problem here is that, in most Western juridictions, the scale of punishment handed down for a criminal offence is dependent on more than just a binary finding of guilt. Under this system, a woman who killed her physically and sexually abusive husband, in order to escape with her life would suffer the same whittling as a cold-blooded Klansman convicted of a racist lynching. A statutory system is not the place of nuance. This means, then, that the court would have to specify the level of whittling, which introduces more complexity to the implementation, not to mention *another* wearisome burden to be waded through at court.
3. The idea of increasing the value of a vote based on profession or academic acheivement actively dilutes the voting power of non-criminal voters who are, oh hell I'll have to say it, Working Class. The result: disenfranchisement though, as I believe they say in politics, the back door.
4. Increasing the value of the middle and upper class vote increases the likelihood of legislation benefitting only the middle and upper classes being passed.
5. I could go on, but I'm still reeling at using the phrase "the working class" in an annotation. |
|
| |
Speeding Ticket 1% (5 miles over)
2% (10 miles over)
3% (15 miles over) |
|
| |
As calum points out, these marks for or against your voting power, would expire, just like marks against your criminal record disappear after time. In fact maybe you could set up a system or formula that mirrors the penal system. For instance their could be a certain percentage reduction of a vote's weight, based on time spent in jail, or fee paid. |
|
| |
I've added a link to a story of mine regarding the difficulty
people have filling in ballot forms, which some may find
interesting. |
|
| |
Perhaps the world would be better off if the naive were in charge. [po] for President! |
|
| |
It's interesting to note which voting notions are taboo. |
|
| |
Proposition 1: Progressive (or even flat percentage) taxation is fair. Pretty popular notion. |
|
| |
Proposition 2: Your influence in the vote should be determined by amount of taxes you paid. Pretty unpopular notion. |
|
| |
Aim higher [RS} - [po] for Empress of the World! |
|
| |
Can't work[-]
#1 Your vote is anonymous in the US. We currently don't allow records to be kept on who voted for what & when. So, how could you weigh it if it's anonymous?
#2 The positives wouldn't work. You're right that we might agree on conviction data, but we're never going to agree if it's "more ethical" to be a peace activist for 100 hours versus be a fundamentalist bible-study teacher for 100 hours.
#3 You can't go negative. I know you're just being silly there, but it needs to stop @ 0. |
|
| |
My wife pointed out the # 1 thing that should be considered when weighting people's votes: knowledge about the candidates: |
|
| |
People, who know nothing about a candidate, should not have very much influence as to weather or not they get elected (and being able to see the R or D by their name isn't enough). A test should be given, with the voter's score qualifying them for different weights assigned to their votes. Perhaps 50 questions could be assigned for each candidate. Some may do with their backgrounds, and others would represent their stances on different policies. |
|
| |
If you don't know anything about the candidate, why should you have any say in their being elected? |
|
| |
These would have to be standardized question. Just because I don't do a good job on this site explaining what these questions are doesn't mean the idea is bad. |
|
| |
You're joking, right? Voting Tests? This was tried in the South in the 50's & 60's. Look up the results and see how you might possibly implement that fairly. |
|
| |
For example, a sample "standardized" question that could've been setup by the government in 2004 to test your knowledge of candidates & thus weight your vote could've said "True or False: John Kerry will raise your taxes" or "True or False: George Bush is chosen by God to run the USA", or more innocuous versions of this. This is not a path we should go down. |
|
| |
Our good intentions of not harming those in our society who take no effort to education themselves, has the negative consequence of not promoting education. More harm has been perpetrated by well intentioned do gooders, than all of histories villains. If you can’t freeking learn to read, what right to you have to vote, in today’s America? |
|
| |
Re: "How about administering a *&^#ng SAT test to qualify your vote?" |
|
| |
I don't understand. Do you mean to say that this would be difficult? |
|
| |
Comparing our votes and our SATs:
Votes: I'd have serious ethical problems in that discussion, worse still if I knew you IRL (in real life). Like, I'd never agree your vote was really better than mine.
SATs: That would just be funny, the idea of discussing that. I wouldn't embarass anyone by defending the validity of those results. |
|
| |
[reensure] Why is it that I can never understand what people are trying to say. What is an IRL? What do you mean, "Votes: I'd have serious ethical problems in that discussion" what discusion? Are you responding to my comment about reading and voting? What does, "SATs: That would just be funny."
mean? |
|
| |
//Surely those who contribute less to society should have their say deducted by an appropriate proportion.//. As I said ealier, everyone should be able to vote, maybe as above. I can see, as Detly says, that every vote should be equally weighted, (at the polling stations), but proportional representation gives power to everyone's vote after the election. If your party won 33% of the popular vote but not one member was elected, then you would be interested in proportional representation.
I vote everyday to keep in form and to influence but seldom at elections; my vote is too diluted.. |
|
| |
"All men are created free and equal; but some are more equal than others." |
|
| |
IRL means "Inland Revenue Limited". It's their private taxation arm. If [reensure] knew that you were a money man, he'd assume your ethics were nil, regardless of what your EQ might actually be. It's a problem with this system - how ethical you are, whether your vote is really better, is subjective. |
|
| |
Even though it's subjective, I think we could make it work. What activities might give you more voting power today, might not give you more voting power a few years from now. But if society gets to participate in it, and your voting power is reflective of what society things your voting power should be, I think that is OK. |
|
| |
Firstly, this is kind of baked in a way. If you want to have more power, you get involved in local government. While you are still only able to vote for a single candidate, by your involvement at PTA, or local council meetings will of course mean that your voice will be heard more clearly than those who are in prison, or smoking crack, or vandalising bus-stops. This is a natural, human-human relationship thing that occurs normally without databases or delicately weighted lists of activities to be logged and metricised. You could argue that those community minded people who do get involved have far more power in their locality than those who dont - It's self organising. I'll come back to this word in a moment. |
|
| |
[myclob], many of your ideas seem to involve taking something that works reasonably well at the moment, amassing a huge amount of data and then applying some horribly complex matrix of values to it in order to achieve some questionable result. Most of the time, the effort in collecting the information required poses far more problems than the initial problem did. This is the halfbakery, so no harm there. However, they are mostly top-down style ideas, their structure is one of centralisation and imposition of rules from above. While this is something governments have traditionally done for some time, the inefficiencies inherent in such systems cause over-fussy, or 'big' government to collapse under its own weight. See the USSR for the reasons why sometimes the best ideas can get bogged down in their own administration. |
|
| |
For example, linking SATs to voting power - yes it does (and I am playing advocate here) mean that the 'cleverer' (at doing SAT tests) people get more of a say. |
|
| |
"What's wrong with that?" I hear you ask. |
|
| |
Well, here's what's wrong. What if the guy who wrote the SAT tests had a dislike of Bigtopians, and put a question in there that would give a slightly higher score to people who expressed a preference for anti-Bigtopian behavior. |
|
| |
All of a sudden, the SAT test-guy has swung the results of the entire election 5% to the right! Did we want to give this much power to one man? |
|
| |
You can solve this problem, by perhaps employing diverse and representative individuals from around the country to compile the SAT tests, then good, but at what (monetary) cost? And who gets to decide who is representative? (And isn't this idea supposed to be restricting representation anyway?) |
|
| |
Then there are the costs involved with running the election alongside the tests. That's a lot of administrators, and poll-station people etc - |
|
| |
It's a huge effort to go to to get a result that you agree is both subjective AND approximate. |
|
| |
Yes, we want cleverer people making better decisions, yes we want our populace to want to study hard and educate themselves. |
|
| |
But I don't want to have to fund a bloated and ethically questionable system in order to limit my own vote. |
|
| |
Another problem from history: Let's say a population can be split into the top 50% and the bottom 50% How will the bottom 50% react to having their votes recinded? Could you blame them for having a violent backlash and killing off the intelligencia in a bloody uprising? |
|
| |
Despite how it sounds, this is not an extreme example when you consider the case in pre-Communist china, where the ruling and academic classes were very closely entwined (the situation we are aiming towards with this idea) During the communist revolution, all those in educated, middle class professions (Doctors, teachers, academics etc) who would have benefited from their status by having a greater say in government, were murdered so as to re-level the socio-political playing field. I'm not too keen on that either. |
|
| |
So, how to improve the idea? I think what it needs is more of this self-organisation property. If you could get away from a centralised model, and find some way to encourage behaviours between people that mean they have a natural desire to improve themselves, become involved in their local communities, take ownership of their own lives and have a greater say in the running of their locality, without the clumsily massive, lumbering state-run bureaucracy, I'd begin to think this was a great idea. |
|
| |
If nobody votes, same question applies. |
|
| |
If this is seen as being elitist, maybe it could be released with anti other elitism ideas. In America we hate the intellectual elite so much that politicians try to sound stupid. If we don’t want an aristocracy why don’t we just do the simple thing and outlaw 2nd generation millionaires from politics? |
|
| |
Because that would be a violation of their constitutional rights? |
|
| |
"You may not stand because your father was paid too well. OK, so last year you could have stood for Congress, but now daddy's died and you've inherited his money that's a totally different picture." |
|
| |
myclob, I did a search on this page for the word 'elite' and only found the two occurances in your anno. Did I miss something? |
|
| |
Yeah, I just spotted another instance in the anno just above this one. |
|
| |
So that's 3 instances of the word elite then? ;) |
|
| |
This somehow reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. I wasn't expecting that. |
|
| |
<catches well-thrown feed line>
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! |
|
| |
[SCOUT] you do not think that stealing a car is un-ethical? |
|
| |
Myclob - you sound remarkably like vernon. |
|
| |
you can make out an accent? |
|
| |
[energy-guy] except that Vernon, for all his verbosity and "in his own worldness" at least had some good ideas that, when cliff-noted, seemed well suited for the halfbakery. |
|
| |
Why would you say that? All of my ideas are bad? I've put a lot of thought and effort into them... I'm trying to fit them beter. I'm listening to suggestions. What else can I do? |
|
| |
Re: "what else can I do"... Well, you can do what I do when I'm lacking for really original cool ideas, and just stop posting new ideas here for awhile. |
|
| |
At first my feeling were hurt, when you said, "at least [vernon] had some good ideas" but then I got mad. Again with the accusations! Instead of just saying that my ideas are all stupid, why don't you prove that they are stupid? |
|
| |
4 people voted for this idea. Just because you don't like the idea does not make it stupid. |
|
| |
We have a different world view. That does not mean that mine is bad. I think that felons should be allowed to vote. I believe that instead of having an all or nothing system, the punishment should fit the crime. I believe that coming up with an attempt to do this, even though it might be messy, would be better than our current system. I believe that jail time, or perhaps dollar fines should be the only things that would decrease some one's vote. We already take away some people's right to vote, all this would do is make this a graded system, that as I said tried to fit the crime. |
|
| |
From my world view, I believe that some people like to pretend that we live in a society that does not try to advance a system of ethics. I do not believe we live in that type of society, or do I believe this is good. This is part of my world view that is the foundation for this idea. |
|
| |
Any society that outlaws certain behaviors and gives tax breaks to other behaviors, is trying to advance some sort of system of ethics. My world view thinks that the majority of people could decide what activities are good for society, such as volunteering at retirement homes. Perhaps documented time at such activities could slightly enhance your voting power. I don't see how this is stupid. Please, instead of telling me that it is stupid, explain with the English language like a human being WHY it is stupid. |
|
| |
To state what most people consider to be obvious
semantics, claiming an idea is "stupid" is identical to saying
that you don't agree with it. |
|
| |
Just because people disagree with the implementation of
your idea, it doesn't mean they disagree with the distinct
concept that people who have served their time should
be allowed to vote. Just because you associate the two, it
does not mean that one logically follows the other (ie.
that your world view is some sort of logical premise for
this idea). |
|
| |
I disagree with this idea because I don't believe that
anyone's representation in democracy should be
comprimised. If society consists of stupid people, the vote
of stupid people will decide how the country is run. If the
country consists of intelligent people, intelligent people
will decide. If society consists of people who want to see
the sun destroyed, then they will vote for a government
to do so. If society consists of law-breakers, then the law-
breakers' vote will govern the outcome. |
|
| |
That's what democracy is, by definition. The government
is determined by who is voting. Deciding that one group of
people should be under-represented is pretty much
identical to deciding that one group of people should be
barred from voting. |
|
| |
Re: "I disagree with this idea because I don't believe that anyone's representation in democracy should be comprimised." To late. Former fellons can not vote. That is how our system is now. |
|
| |
I don't agree with that either. Doesn't mean your idea
makes any more sense. |
|
| |
To me, the ethics quotient idea doesn't make much sense at all. The whole idea behind our voting systems is that different sets of values (and policies that implement them) are put forward, and electors decide between them, based on their own values and perceptions. Most liberal democracies have constitutions drafted with this specific outcome in mind. They lay down a broad legal framework, and guarantee some very basic rights, but acknowledge that values change, and implement a mechanism to accommodate this - voting. It may be argued that this sometimes doesn't work very well, but the extant alternatives, e.g. theocratic states, which codify "ethical" standards in their constitutions, seem to work a whole lot worse. |
|
| |
There are also logical problems - who is going to decide who or what is ethical? Well, by definition, the "ethical" people, since they have the greater say. This system has a built-in powerful positive feedback mechanism. |
|
| |
I have more sympathy with the "policy awareness" idea, although it would be difficult to implement fairly and enormously open to abuse, given the scandals that currently accompany simple vote counting systems. |
|
| |
About the _whole_ idea of meritocracy, its right and its wrong, and the benefits one might expect to flow to all from its implementation. Whoever you are, vote with a clear conscience but remember, anybody can have a bad day. |
|
| |
It's easy to defeat an idea that I am not advocating, such as a theocracy, but why don't you try to defeat the idea that I actually posted, that of giving those who commit crime less of a vote, proportional to there crime, and those who do community service, more of a vote, proportional to the service they render? |
|
| |
No where did I advocate "a theocratic states, which codify "ethical" standards in their constitutions" so freaking learn to argue, before you just go blabbing your mouth. |
|
| |
Ok, let me spell it out for you. |
|
| |
Most "liberal democracies" have constitutional frameworks that go a long way to avoid casting any but the most universal ethical standards or biases in concrete. By and large, this seems to have worked quite well. |
|
| |
To implement your "ethical quotient" voting system, would require these constitutions to be changed to classify some people as more "ethical" than others, based on their background and behaviours. These ammended constitutions would therefore codify ethical standards, and this would be antithetical to their original intentions. |
|
| |
Theocratic states directly encode "ethical" standards in their founding documents, rather than, per your proposal, giving more say to people whose "ethicality" is encoded in the constitution, but this is really the same thing, once removed. |
|
| |
Re: "Most "liberal democracies" have constitutional frameworks that go a long way to avoid casting any but the most universal ethical standards or biases in concrete. By and large, this seems to have worked quite well." |
|
| |
That sir is bull sh*#. We have laws in our countries, some behavior is illegal, like prostitution, drug use, theft, and murder. Most liberal democracies say these things are "bad". If you can't freaking admit that helping children is "good" I do not want to talk to you, and I'm going to start deleting your comments because you are such a moron. |
|
| |
I think the problem here is with the term 'liberal democracy'. [myclob] is advocating a technologically supported 'controlled theocracy' - or to put it another way, a modern, but otherwise, ultra Conservative (sometimes labelled Facist or Totalitarian) form of government. |
|
| |
The idea itself has been baked in Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy. It is probably currently in operation in North Korea and up until recently was operating perfectly well in Hussain's Iraq. Of course, each example had slightly different weightings, and much less actual voting, but if someone actually 'knows' what's right for a country, why bother with all that expensive election crap anyway? |
|
| |
Since you have twice resorted to abuse, maybe we should let your idea stand or fall by the non-ethically nuanced croissant system. Currently, that's 4 pro, 22 anti. I guess that you could shift the odds if you could persuade the moderators that your vote was worth quite a lot more than others'. |
|
| |
[myclob] yes, there are things called laws that have, by and large been formulated from within a democratic system (one containing necessary check and balances) - We follow these because they describe the behaviours we have collectively chosen to avoid. |
|
| |
It is one thing to change, or to choose a law, but something else to change the method by which the choosing occurs. In a dynamic system such as a nation, you have to be VERY careful when tinkering with the controls. If you take away a control, or nudge the system a little too far to the left, or to the right, there is the potential for it to spiral off into unknown and unpredictable extremes of behaviour. The great thing about (checked and balanced) democracy is that it tends to tread a centrist, moderate, innoffensive path. I'd rather not see it changed in such a way that could lead it to extremism of any kind and, unfortunately, the idea you are proposing could lead to extremism (as well as being advocacy, being entirely impractical, unethical, hugely expensive, and having absolutely no positive benefits whatsoever.) |
|
| |
In the mists of time, it was considered that those who did not own land didn't have enough sense or purpose to hold a vote. |
|
| |
At other times, "ignorant women " were denied a voice. |
|
| |
Blacks, Jews and those of many other races have all been denied votes at various times in history. |
|
| |
Yet on each occasion, we have come to agree that the more voices, the better - that holding one portion of the population down while another is able to speak is a bad thing. |
|
| |
When looked at from within a system of ethics, this system itself is failing terribly. It's just not ethical! |
|
| |
In fact, I am curious; Why is this a good idea? What effect do you want to see? |
|
| |
Possible advantages of this idea:
1. Deterrent effect on the criminal underclass.
Ah but: "Tell you what, officer, I *was* going to rob this old lady so I could user her pension to buy methamphetamine but on second thoughts, I don't think I want to diminish my constitutionally protected democractic right."
2. Could see an increase in socially minded legislation being passed, as those who abide by the terms of the social contract are more likely to consider the social impact of any legislation proposed.
Ah but: Socially minded legislation is voted for by those who will benefit directly. Bleeding heart leftist Guardian readers are a minority. "I'm all right, Jack" swinging centre-rightists will make up the majority of the law abiding "vote > 1" group.
3. Seems notionally fairer.
Ah but: But only if you will benefit from the tweaking of the value of your right. |
|
| |
Under this system, not only is there disenfranchisement of the social underclass but there could be targeted disenfranchisment by a government by, say, criminalising certain types of protest (cf Breach of the Peace) which could undermine the voting power of any large political movement. The potential for abuse here is far far far too great. |
|
| |
In fact, for the first time in months, it's a fishbone from me. |
|
| |
Take this to Overbaked. 23 people have voted against; you're welcome to continue this discussion but here is no longer the place for it. |
|
| |
Re: "If you take away a control, or nudge the system a little too far to the left, or to the right, there is the potential for it to spiral off into unknown and unpredictable extremes of behavior." |
|
| |
How many times do I have to say this, WE ALREADY DO THIS!!!!!!!!!! We do not let former felons vote!!!! Gosh! All I am saying is that we make the decrease in voting capacity proportional to the seriousness of the crime!!!! You guys are so freaking stupid! |
|
| |
Re: " [myclob] is advocating a technologically supported 'controlled theocracy' - or to put it another way, a modern, but otherwise, ultra Conservative (sometimes labelled Facist or Totalitarian) form of government. |
|
| |
I am not advocating a system any different to what we ALREADY do. Once again, former fellons can not vote. |
|
| |
Can any one respond to this? Are they dis-enfranchised? That is so stupid to compare this to nazi's. That is the most over used comparison ever. Why not compare it to the current system in America, and most "liberal democracies" where felons CAN NOT VOTE? |
|
| |
[I am not advocating a system any different to what we ALREADY do.] |
|
| |
So can we M-F-D this then? |
|
| |
What I meant, was anything less ethical. I have an original idea, which you can tell by reading my idea, I just don't think that it does anything that would fit in a "different" ethical class than the current system, because we allready deny criminals the right to vote. |
|
| |
Perhaps you could rename the idea? |
|
| |
"Give stupid, US criminals more voting power" |
|
| |
"and educated, law abiding people more as well" |
|
| |
All this talk of ethical classes, things that are "less ethical" and the like just mires us in a sea of confusion and grammatical errors. |
|
| |
[myclob] - How many times do I have to say this: claiming that your country already does this does not mean that people can't disagree with you. For all you know, [zen_tom] disagrees with that as well. |
|
| |
Re: "[myclob] - How many times do I have to say this: claiming that your country already does this does not mean that people can't disagree with you. For all you know, [zen_tom] disagrees with that as well." |
|
| |
You only have to say it once, for it to not make any sense. If my system is no less ethical than our current system, why would he compare it to Nazi’s? I don't think you said that more than once, and I never said that people can't disagree with me. People don't even have to make any sense, but I will argue with them when they don't. |
|
| |
I compared this idea (and I still do) with Totalitarian regimes because the large, centralised administration required to keep it all working, apart from costing vast sums of money, would require that the government know a lot more about an individual than I care to imagine. (The Nazi's were very organised and precise you know, much like your Japanese Engineers in many ways - not that that is a bad thing) |
|
| |
The reason why I don't like the government holding a vast centralised file that describes my 'citizenly' behaviour is because that information can be very easily misused by those in power. |
|
| |
No we don't give felons the vote (or rather you guys in the US don't) However, that's not a particularly high position of ethics to be aspiring to. If I were you, I'd try keeping quiet about that. |
|
| |
Further, this idea is not about giving back the vote to felons, it's about getting government to stick its nose into people's businesses (where it doesn't belong) in order to keep a set of arbitrary ethical values in place. It disenfranchises those from poorer neighbourhoods (because they are less likely to be educated), and trivialises worthwhile activities by awarding 'voting points'. |
|
| |
And please, try to imagine how expensive this would be! |
|
| |
Back to the Totalitarian regime business. Have you ever read '1984'? It describes a regime where government has a file on everybody in order to measure their ethics(similar in many ways to the way the Gestapo operated during the occupation of Europe in WWII, or for that matter, dissidents or 'suspicious' types in England, or those unfortunate people to have suffered the McCarthy witchunts). Those people who's ethics are not judged moral enough are 're-educated'. Until they see the error of their ways. This regime exists for the sole purpose of remaining in power, and in many ways is not entirely unlike the system we currently live in today. Now think seriously about the fuss the US is currently making about Homeland Security, with people shopping in their neighbours for suspicious activities etc. With a database in place that weighted your vote, it would only be a tiny step away from someone in power turning this largely useless (and if I need to say it again, lumbering and hideously expensive) system to usefull ends. Those ends? Keeping closer tabs on the populace than is currently possible. The reason? To gain and maintain power. |
|
| |
In this way, your idea opens the door to situations that are currently not possible. |
|
| |
It also suffers from the major problem of not providing any measurable benefit despite an outlay of huge sums of cash. |
|
| |
Please try to address the question of why this idea is any good before you are tempted to insult any of us again - but if you do, keep it short, this has already gone on long enough. I've posted a link to a yahoo group (Overbaked)where you can continue this discussion further if you want since this is my last post on the subject here. |
|
| |
It would take a "centralized administration" to keep track of the crimes people commit? WE ALREADY KEEP TRACK OF PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES, THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS. THEY ALREADY CAN NOT VOTE!!!!!! |
|
| |
It will take "vast sums of money"? Yahoo will soon give anyone in the world a free gigabyte of storage. FREE. Data bases are cheap. The government would just have to maintain a data base for each person, with a simple number between 0 and 2 to represent a person's voting power. I believe I could fit that file on a floppy disk. If our federal government can not afford a floppy disk ($.32) we are in a world of trouble! |
|
| |
Remembering who has committed crime and who has not would be "the government sticking its nose into people's businesses"? |
|
| |
I hate to keep criticizing you but you say the stupidest things. |
|
| |
My idea is "similar in many ways to the way the Gestapo operated during the occupation of Europe in WWII"? You mean the Gestapo kept track of the hours that people volunteered for community service? I don't remember seeing that on the history channel. DO NOT COMPAIR MY IDEA TO THE NAZI'S ONE MORE TIME, WITHOUT GIVING ME AN EXAMPLE OF HOW MY IDEA IS SIMILAR! YOU ARE REALY STARTING TO PISS ME OFF. |
|
| |
We can all see you saying this... the capitals don't make it more noticeable than the repetition already does. Personally I think that branding someone for life as a "former felon" and thus stripping them of their right to vote is wrong. Assuming that being convicted of a criminal act makes you worthless to society forever is, in my opinion, cruel and often hypocritical. |
|
| |
Further to that, allowing the governing authority to decide how much your vote is worth? This is so wide open to abuse that it should never be implemented. |
|
| |
Oh, and "A free gigabyte!" is all very well; you could fit the whole database onto a standard hard drive and still have space left over. Now, there's about sixty million Brits. Trying to keep track of every act judged "significant", good or bad, and compile and maintain a database is going to cost a lot more than the price of the space it goes on. How many people do you imagine would be needed to set up and administer such a system? |
|
| |
[myclob] Floppy disk capacity 1.44Mbyte (not "bite") or 11.52 million bits - barely enough to keep voting records for Monaco (about 45 bytes per resident). I hate to keep critisizing [sic] you but you say the stupidest things |
|
| |
Does anyone read my ideas before commenting on them? I specifically said that a diminished weight should not last very long. I give up. I am no longer posting any ideas to this website. I know you all will miss me, but I can’t take the self righteous stupidity I see here. The ideas that people post that get “croissants” are the stupidest things I have ever heard. I do not respect the opinion of a single person here. |
|
| |
Erm... you're not infallible. If twenty-odd people disagree with you, do you ever feel that maybe there's a flaw in your thinking? Storming off won't teach you anything; the site will continue without you and the only person hurt will be yourself. Swallow your pride for once. |
|
| |
re: "[myclob] Floppy disk capacity 1.44Mbyte (not "bite") or 11.52 million bits - barely enough to keep voting records for Monaco (about 45 bytes per resident). I hate to keep critisizing [sic] you but you say the stupidest things" |
|
| |
One last thing, do you think I might have been exagerating a little bit? |
|
| |
Ok, I'm swallowing my pride. I said, "you say the stupidest things some times" I apologize for that. We all say stupid things some times. For instance, every time I try to spell something. |
|
| |
I don't know if I want to post any more of my ideas for public criticism. I think I need to try and explain them to friends first, and write them up in a more logical way first, before I bring them here. So I don't think I will post any more ideas, or even try to defend the one's I've posted for a while, but I wanted to apologize for taking criticism of my idea so personally. |
|
| |
I just really hate the Nazi comparison. That is so intellectually lazy. |
|
| |
OK... I can respect that. |
|
| |
[myclob] - I made the point three times, in all. |
|
| |
A simple score between 0 and 2 would NOT be adequate
for this system - what if the judgement of ethics changes
over time? You would need to re-evaluate every single
person based on everything they have done; or ignore a
change in standards, which seems to me to trivialise the
whole system. You also point out that a diminished
weighting would not last long - how would you keep track
of when the weightings were modified? |
|
| |
Some problems with your raw and salmonella laden idea:
|
|
| |
// My world view thinks that the majority of people could decide what activities are good for society, such as volunteering at retirement homes//
People who have retired have already lived and enjoyed most of their lives. They have also been working, and amassing their savings for many years. You’re telling me that it is good for society for healthy, well able people; who have not had time to amass savings, or to experience as much of the world as they would like; to give up their time to care for people who have enjoyed themselves for the past 60 years and squandered their life savings so that they cannot even afford the care that they need without volunteers? Maybe that’s just my view, but it shows you right there that everyone’s idea of activities that are good for society will differ. Meat eaters will not want your vote to count more because you were picketing in front of a slaughterhouse with PETA, nor a pro-choicer if your vote counts more for picketing a abortion clinic. For every view point there is at least one contrary one.
|
|
| |
//Speeding Ticket 1% (5 miles over) 2% (10 miles over) 3% (15 miles over)//
(describing how speeding will decrease your voting ability)
What makes speeding unethical? Engineers that build highways generally rate (based upon safe performance) them 10-15 miles higher than the politicians place the speed limits. So what decides what driving speed is unethical?
|
|
| |
//People, who know nothing about a candidate, should not have very much influence as to weather or not they get elected (and being able to see the R or D by their name isn't enough).//
I like guns. I really like guns. I think everyone should have the ability to own, and use as many, of whatever sort of gun he or she wants to. My life resolves around guns. I work at and own a gun shop. After work I go to the gun club, or shooting range or go talk about guns at the bar. On the weekends I go hunting. All I care about is guns. Candidate A wants to make owning anything bigger than a bb gun illegal. Candidate B is a lifetime member of the NRA. I know nothing else about the candidates, and don’t care about their stances on other issues. Why should I not be able to vote for candidate B? I don’t know much about their politics, but I know all about them that matters to me.
|
|
| |
// instead of removing former felons right to vote completely, their voting power should be affected proportionally to the crime//
Once found guilty be a jury, there are two ways to get out of it. 1) The judge can overturn the conviction if asked to by the DA, or if something was done wrong in the trial. 2) The governor/president (depending on the jurisdiction of the crime) can pardon the criminal and it all goes away, no ifs ands or buts (like with Nixon). If an elected official is the criminal’s last line of defense, why should they not get a choice in the matter?
Even if you are guilty of a felony, and have no chance of being pardoned, what says that your voice in the election is any worse than a racist’s or bigot’s or republican’s? There are many crimes that you can be convicted of, that do not show the criminal has a total disregard for society, that shouldn’t be used to limit peoples right to vote.
In addition, if all it takes to stop your opponents from voting is to make them felons, there is too much chance for abuse from some overzealous politician taking advantage of that fact, or even unintentionally.
We may already stop convicted criminals from voting, but since your idea is to make the system better, shouldn’t you try to correct the current wrongs, and not just try to lessen them. |
|
| |
I have added the following items to the main idea: |
|
| |
Reasons to agree:
1. The average citizen does not have the time to figure out who would most likely make good policy decisions, let alone predict the outcome of different policy decisions. |
|
| |
2. Experts make better decisions than non experts. |
|
| |
3. Quality is more important than equality. |
|
| |
4. Just because everyone has a voice does not mean good decisions will be made. |
|
| |
5. Each society has the obligation to determine what it will and will not accept. Societies have the right to say some things are good, and some things are bad. |
|
| |
6. Garbage in garbage out. If stupid people are the one's making choices, then they will probably do stupid things. |
|
| |
7. Corporations do not take votes on what they should do, they try and find the most qualified people. |
|
| |
8. Computers with data bases make it possible to keep track of large amounts of information. |
|
| |
9. People should not be offended if their vote is weighted less than others, if they new that their actions resulted in their lower weighting. |
|
| |
10. Those that obey the law deserve to be listened to more than those who disobey the law. |
|
| |
11. We should design a government that is most likely to be stable, and meet the needs of the citizens of our country vs. we should design a government that does what ever the majority of the people want it to do. |
|
| |
12. Those who drink and drive care more about their needs than the needs of the community, and so their votes should be diminished, because those who care more about the needs of the community will more likely institute policy that helps the community |
|
| |
1. Not everyone agrees about what is ethical and what is not ethical. (Response: This is true but it doesn't stop us from outlawing certain behaviors. Some people think that drugs, prostitution, and other things should be legalized. We all agree that murder of innocent human beings outside of the womb is wrong. I can not speak to specifics because this complaint isn't specific. It just says that my system can be abused. Well teddy bears can be used to suffocate people, but that doesn't make them bad.) |
|
| |
2. This system is too complicated. (Response: I would do the easy parts first, and the more difficult parts later. We can put a man on a moon. We already deny former felons the right to vote, why not start my system by decreasing their vote proportionally to the severity of their crime? We could do a simple method based on years served, or dollars paid, in the case of white collar crime.) |
|
| |
3. There are already voting problems. (Response: This form of debate does not stand up to logical scrutiny. Just because one system does not work, does not mean that another system will not work. The math is easy. Everyone has a weight between 0 and lets say 2. You take all the votes for one candidate, and add them together. You do the same for the next candidate, and who ever has a larger number wins.) |
|
| |
4. This system could be used to discriminate against Christians, homosexuals, or other minorities. (Response: This falls into the "this system could be abused, and so it is bad" category. I refer you to the argument that I'm sure I have made earlier that just because hammers can be used to smash thumbs, does not make them bad. I should not even respond to these type of arguments, but I can't help myself. This system was not in place when the USA rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps, or when they issued an extermination order on all Mormons living in Mousuri during the 1800's. And yet, these things happened without my "evil" system. Of course, my system would be open to review by the judicial system. I have proposed a system that does not judge people by their race or religion. It judges them on their behavior. It is good to discriminate based on past behavior. You agree, or else you would let your kids have stay over at Michael Jackson's place. |
|
| |
5. Your vote is anonymous in the US. (Response: Their are tons of easy fixes to this. Random passwords being assigned to each individual, that only they know. This would show their voting weight, and to whom their votes went). |
|
| |
6. We're never going to agree if it's "more ethical" to be a peace activist for 100 hours versus be a fundamentalist bible-study teacher for 100 hours. (Response: We do not work by consensus in this country, we work by majority. Rules change all the time. Society changes, culture changes. Some things become legal, and some things become illegal, if you haven't noticed. Everyone might not agree, but I do not doubt that society could come up with a good list. Maybe different cities would have different list. San Francisco might give different weight to things than Salt Lake, but why does everything have to be the same?) |
|
| |
//2. Experts make better decisions than non experts.// |
|
| |
Ok, let's apply this idea in a completely democratic fashion - |
|
| |
1. At the polling booth, each elector is given the opportunity to nominate criteria by which votes will be weighted, and to provide weightings, probably on a -1.0 to 1.0 scale. e.g. gun owner (-0.8); creationist (-1.0); Britney Spears fan (-0.7). (Perhaps this could be called the Robespierre scale). |
|
| |
2. The weightings are averaged by computer. Criteria that have an overall neutral (near 0) weighting are ignored, as are extreme outliers, which could have no effect on the outcome. (This step could be applied recursively, so that weightings have an effect on weightings) |
|
| |
3. The electoral office maintains an extensive database of citizens' habits, affiliations, crimes, misdemeanors and so on. Some of this information could be compiled from public records; the rest is collected via a questionairre, backed up by stiff penalties for providing inaccurate information. The electoral office has an enforcement arm, with extensive powers of investigation. This would audit randomly selected electors, and also follow up on leads provided by other citizens. Something like a tax office, only a bit more powerful. It would obviously be more efficient to combine this database with other databases already held by government agencies, educational institutions, credit ratings bureaux, marketing companies etc, but this is not strictly necessary. |
|
| |
4. This information is used to weight electors' votes, per the original proposal. Every elector gets a say in how much other people's vote should count, as well as a vote for themselves. Simple, non? |
|
| |
Ok I admit I haven't read all the idea or all the annotations (I got bored - sorry (this will probably reduce my vote)) but I think I've got the general idea. |
|
| |
Myclob - Generally the critisms seem to come from 'rating' other people by your standards and I agree with this. |
|
| |
By your standards I 'lose' marks for the following: |
|
| |
I dislike politics so would not pass your test about the candidates |
|
| |
I live remotely and have little interaction with society (hence no bonus points for community work) |
|
| |
I know enough about the candidates policies and the way they will affect me |
|
| |
Due to my remoteness I've never been convicted of a crime |
|
| |
So this evens out - I'm back to 1, surely most people would argue similarly, so I don't see the point of all the work and of the Government holding files on each person. |
|
| |
Maybe I am obsessed with complicated legislation. |
|
| |
Einstein said, "A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." |
|
| |
I guess you could say things work OK now, but I think things could work better. The founding fathers of the USA came up with the concept of the electoral system, because they did not believe in true democracy. They did not want "Mobocracy". You could say that it too complicated, but
they were trying to accomplish something. |
|
| |
They also came up with the idea of separation of powers. This was supposed to lead to beter policy. You could say, "This system is too complicated". The simplest form of government is a dictatorship. One
person has one plan, and everyone agrees or you get killed. Is a simple government a good government? |
|
| |
Democracy is messy. I fascinated (you say obsessed) with creating survival of the fittest system for ideas, where only the best ideas survive. Some system needs to be created using all of the good principals, like transparency... |
|
| |
You know how there are rules for good brain storming sessions? One of them is you are supposed to separate the process of evaluating ideas from coming up with ideas. |
|
| |
With technology, like data bases, and computers some options are available that were not practical in earlier decades. Like why do we have to vote on a certain day? If the internet is secure enough to make
billions of dollars of purchase each week, why can't we vote online? Why can't we change our vote? |
|
| |
We have the technology to go to a pure democracy. However that scares me. Even though senators are problematic, they are able to devote all of their time to the issues. They are forced to sit down with those
that appose them. They have to argue. They have to take questions from the press. They have to pick staff, and stay informed with the public.
People write them letters telling them what they think. All of these things put their ideas through a survival of the fittest process, where
bad ideas and good ideas are exposed, and they have to go through the process of convincing and being convinced. |
|
| |
So I'm kind of afraid of the "casual vote" where no one puts any time or thought into their decisions, they just demand the right to vote in
a pure democracy. If we go to a pure democracy, I do not think we should demand the right to a private vote in a pure democracy. Senators to not have a right to a private vote. We all expect to know how they voted, and when their records don't make any sense, we ask them why they voted that way (first I voted for the war, before I voted against
it). |
|
| |
I think how I got obsessed with politics was by reading the book "Pastwatch" by Orson Scott Card. This is a, "What if you could go back and do history differently" book. This book came up with a
scenario that would have avoided slavery, and the subjection of native people in the Americas. |
|
| |
I have been watching a lot of the history channel recently. I often think, how could they have instituted democracy in the Roman Empire? I know they had a senate, that had some powers, but the emperor seemed like at times he was too powerful. I'm not a historian and so I don't know a whole lot. But how could democracy in Greece been set up
to last forever. What if they could have exported it to China, and the Middle East thousands of years ago? |
|
| |
o/t to prevent [myclob] being o/t - not everyone here reads "overbaked". |
|
| |
I suppose there are a lot of what ifs, for now, as well as in the past. It's when people stop thinking what if? that things really become problematic, and not so much what they think. I think I'd like you, Myclob, if I met you. Ciao, till soon. |
|
| |
so [po], you'd terminate this discussion just as it was reaching some resolution? Is your judgement to be measured in kilobytes? |
|
| |
I said what I wanted to say way up the top... |
|
| |
The doctrine of the separation of powers is not something that the founding fathers of the USA "came up with." |
|
| |
REASONS TO AGREE: 1. It might result in better policy. 2. If you have had a ticket for drunk driving, than it says that you care more about your needs than the needs of others. 3. It would allow criminals to take part in the election process, while still limiting their influence in the election. The punishment of not having the right to vote would be more tailored to fit the severity of the crime, where worse crimes result in lower weight to one's vote. 4. Those who contribute less to society should have their say deducted by an appropriate proportion |
|
| |
REASONS TO DISAGREE: 1. It would make the election more complicated. (Response, computers could help with this). 2. It is open to abuse (Response, every system is open to abuse). 3. The fundamental idea of democracy is that every person has an equal right to have an equal say (Response: The rich in our society have a much greater say. This system tries to create an aristocracy of knowledge/thought instead of money) |
|
| |
MOST PROBABLE INTEREST OF THOSE WHO AGREE: 1. They want to impose their ethics (response: I do not want to impose my ethics. I think each society should). |
|
| |
MOST PROBABLE INTEREST OF THOSE WHO DISAGREE: 1. Simplicity (of our current system) |
|
| |
APPOSING PRINCIPLES: 1. Privacy 2. Equality 3. Faith in our current system 4. Faith in "the average voter" |
|
| |
COMMON INTEREST: APPOSING INTEREST: |
|
| |
Feel free to add anything to the list. |
|
| |
Books that agree:
1. A Tale of Two Cities (This shows the dangers of pure democracy)
2. Atlas Shrugged |
|
| |
Books that Disagree:
1. Books by Orwell (People never feel they have to explain, they just mention Orwell and think they won the arguement. I don't see how "the idea of the value of your vote on who is making the laws in your country being dependant on breaking the laws that they create" has anything to do with Orwel) |
|
| |
Reason to disagree: the fundamental idea of democracy is
that every person has an equal right to have an equal say. |
|
| |
As [david_scothern ]'s quote suggested, doesn't the idea of the value of your vote on who is making the laws in your country being dependant on breaking the laws that they create sound slightly Orwellian? |
|
| |
Books that agree:
1. A Tale of Two Cities (This shows the dangers of pure democracy)
2. Atlas Shrugged |
|
| |
Books that Disagree:
1. Books by Orwell (People never feel they have to explain, they just mention Orwell and think they won the arguement. I don't see how "the idea of the value of your vote on who is making the laws in your country being dependant on breaking the laws that they create" has anything to do with Orwel). We already put people in Jail for breaking these laws. AND AS I HAVE TO KEEP SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THEY ALREADY CAN NOT VOTE. I'M JUST SAYING WE MAKE A FORMULA FOR IT, INSTEAD OF IT BEING ALL OR NOTHING. |
|
| |
Replacing something which some people see as wrong
with another system which is also wrong doesn't mean it's
preferable. |
|
| |
One other reason to disagree: in the current system, it's
blatantly obvious. In a weighting system, people might be
less inclined to oppose it, simply because it's less
extreme. |
|
| |
//I'M JUST SAYING WE MAKE A FORMULA FOR IT, INSTEAD OF IT BEING ALL OR NOTHING.//
You are not ‘just’ saying that, you are saying that, in addition to putting forth several other ‘improvements’ in your idea. I happen to disagree with all of them.
As for that improvement, read [detly]’s last anno, several people have pointed this out, but you don’t seem to understand that even though the current system is bad, people may not want to fix it, unless it is fixed completely. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and if it is, don’t fix it half-assed. |
|
| |
oh come back - Anti-unrequited-love drug... |
|
| |
oh, that went on and on and on and on and on and on relentlessly too. like chinese tap torture and I aint talking beer. |
|
| |
My point was that by being able to set laws, and thus devalue the votes of those of those that oppose them, this would give complete power to a government. Such a round-about way of getting power reads like something Orwel might have written i.e. absolute power hidden behind a facade of justice. |
|
| |
What additional power would they get? They already have the power to make murder, theft, rape, etc illegal. They already have the power to deny the vote of people who do these things. So what additional power would they be getting? |
|
| |
What would stop them making "Government Opposition" illegal. That way anybody with a viewpoint different to their own could have their vote discredited. |
|
| |
What would stop them doing it anyway? |
|
| |
One of the few advantages of democracy is that, should some tyrannical government gain power, that we would have the ability to vote them out in the next election. |
|
| |
How many times do we have to go threw this? We do not have a democracy, we have a republic. My system would be federal republic that gave those who followed the laws (that are approved in the normal way) such as crime, murder, rape, etc more power in voting. My system would be a virtuous republic. Where virtue is defined by the system of laws, which already make up the society. |
|
| |
To be fair you have a democratic republic. |
|
| |
What, if anything, do those words mean to you, when in your ideal society, the government dictates everyone's moral standards? [-], for sure. |
|
| |
democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality. |
|
| |
The state of being equivalent: equation, equivalence, equivalency, par, parity, sameness. See same/different/compare. |
|
| |