Only above average IQ people should vote????
-
@chango70 said:
I believe a new, more flexible way of political representation is urgently needed for mass Democracy to have any relavance for post-industrial societies.
What do you mean by this? What kind of flexibility do you have in mind?
-
@rickw said:
Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons for why the Founding Fathers shunned direct democracy in the US - and why we should continue to shun it: hysteria voting, ill-informed voting, directed/coerced voting, and more...
Without the Electoral College (democratic republic), States rights would be severely diminished and the last thing I want is for the power of the Federal government to be expanded.
-
@rickw said:
Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons for why the Founding Fathers shunned direct democracy in the US - and why we should continue to shun it: hysteria voting, ill-informed voting, directed/coerced voting, and more...
That's not entirely true. Although some favored limiting the vote to "gentlemen of means," there were others who saw this as forming an oligarchy and favored franchising all free men - the later won out.
-
It is strange or Ironic however if indeed the Electoral college results in the US not technically being a democracy why they see the need to promote democracy all over the world in such an agressive way.
-
@daniel said:
@rickw said:
Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons for why the Founding Fathers shunned direct democracy in the US - and why we should continue to shun it: hysteria voting, ill-informed voting, directed/coerced voting, and more...
That's not entirely true. Although some favored limiting the vote to "gentlemen of means," there were others who saw this as forming an oligarchy and favored franchising all free men - the later won out.
There's a difference between direct democracy and universal suffrage, and I think some people confuse (or equate) the two.
We have universal suffrage: any legal citizen of age can vote, with the obvious exception of criminals, of course. You don't even have to be alive in Chicago to be able to vote.
We do NOT have a direct democracy: we do not directly vote on every issue under the sun. Instead, we elect representatives [council members, aldermen, commissioners, representatives, senators, mayors, and governors] who decide on most issues on our behalf. There are special occasions where a local issue is decided by referendum (direct vote), but that is out of the norm. I hear some folks complain about their elected leader not voting "the will of the people", but that's not necessarily what they should be doing. There are times when the "will of the people" is derived from misleading or incomplete information (sometimes thanks to the media and their agenda), and leaders must go against that collective will to make a more informed decision. It may not be popular, and it may not be understood, but if we have selected for ourselves leaders of strong moral character, we should be able to trust their decisions, even if we don't understand them.
The problem is finding people we can trust like that. Most people with such qualifications usually don't go into politics, leaving us with Barney "There's No Crisis" Frank, et al. (Yes, I picked on Frank, but there are those of his ilk on both sides of the aisle - men and women who have violated the public trust and are unfit to lead).
Personally, I think any bailout (which I generally oppose) should have as a requirement that any congressional member who supported expanding the subprime lending program resign from office immediately upon passage of the bailout bill.
-
@unknownuser said:
@chango70 said:
I believe a new, more flexible way of political representation is urgently needed for mass Democracy to have any relavance for post-industrial societies.
What do you mean by this? What kind of flexibility do you have in mind?
Like I said before the problem resides in political parties voted in and making decision RE-PRESENTING you, the voting public. To use a example I used before as society become more diversified party representation becomes increasingly too simple to truely represent the spectrum of opinions. I have no ready solution to any of this. What I do know is that in order remain relavent our current democratic system will have to go through some changes to accomodate these changes otherwise we will continue to see a erosion of voting numbers (I consider anything below 50% national turnout to be void).
Technology could offer us a solution. In some scandinavian countries like Demark. Electronic voting have been tried. The basic infrastructure of internet also offer great many potential for increased transparency and openess as well as direct participatory Democratic decision making. Government need to be allowed to experinment.
Advertisement