Is democracy broken?
-
I totally agree, IMO an IQ or aptitude test should be administered before anybody is allowed to vote. Those who score high enough should be required to vote. Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
Brad Jennings wrote: IMO an IQ or aptitude test should be administered before anybody is allowed to vote But IQ tests aren't worth shit and an aptitude test for what? What you're proposing is an elitist society where only the "smart" people get a say in how things are run. What about the stay-at-home mums who don't have much formal education, for example? We would end up with the "smarter" people, and hence probably more affluent, determining which direction their society would take, at the expense of the less-well-off. Of course, that's sort of what we've got now... :laugh:
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Brad Jennings wrote: IMO an IQ or aptitude test should be administered before anybody is allowed to vote But IQ tests aren't worth shit and an aptitude test for what? What you're proposing is an elitist society where only the "smart" people get a say in how things are run. What about the stay-at-home mums who don't have much formal education, for example? We would end up with the "smarter" people, and hence probably more affluent, determining which direction their society would take, at the expense of the less-well-off. Of course, that's sort of what we've got now... :laugh:
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
So true, I hadn't looked at it from that point of view. I guess there is no easy answer for this question. I still say beaurocracy is the devil though (the first thing I thought of when I wrote this line is "The Waterboy" with Adam Sandler, "...and she showed me her boobies and I liked it!" :laugh: ) Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
-
So true, I hadn't looked at it from that point of view. I guess there is no easy answer for this question. I still say beaurocracy is the devil though (the first thing I thought of when I wrote this line is "The Waterboy" with Adam Sandler, "...and she showed me her boobies and I liked it!" :laugh: ) Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
Brad Jennings wrote: I guess there is no easy answer for this question. Yes, it's all too hard. OK, then. Let's turn this in a boobies thread. :laugh:
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Brad Jennings wrote: I guess there is no easy answer for this question. Yes, it's all too hard. OK, then. Let's turn this in a boobies thread. :laugh:
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
OK, then. Let's turn this in a boobies thread. You asked for it! (Warning: Nudity)http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg[^] Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
-
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
First the most are not a true democracies. They are representative governments. Which I still believe is the best practical form that we have options for. Take a look at how few people spend the time to educate themselves on issues. Now scale that up to what would happen if the individuals really were voting all the time for actual laws, bills, etc. to be implemented, even just polls. It would be chaos. Taka Muraoka wrote: Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care? IMO it is some of the above but mostly the false perception that that the individual does not make any difference. Colin Davies and I had a good discussion on this a few threads down in the "RED" discussion. If we could just encourage people to realize how little it takes to make a difference and then hopefully they will also spend some time to not just emotionally react, but let there concerns be voiced, the world and their country could be much better. I agree that setting IQ test is not valid. It was not that long ago (in my life time ok) that the IQ tests given in the US schools were definitely based on "white culture" so gave a unfair reading of all others. I do not agree that all children should be allowed to vote if they show capability. It takes time to mature and who is going to decide. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
First the most are not a true democracies. They are representative governments. Which I still believe is the best practical form that we have options for. Take a look at how few people spend the time to educate themselves on issues. Now scale that up to what would happen if the individuals really were voting all the time for actual laws, bills, etc. to be implemented, even just polls. It would be chaos. Taka Muraoka wrote: Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care? IMO it is some of the above but mostly the false perception that that the individual does not make any difference. Colin Davies and I had a good discussion on this a few threads down in the "RED" discussion. If we could just encourage people to realize how little it takes to make a difference and then hopefully they will also spend some time to not just emotionally react, but let there concerns be voiced, the world and their country could be much better. I agree that setting IQ test is not valid. It was not that long ago (in my life time ok) that the IQ tests given in the US schools were definitely based on "white culture" so gave a unfair reading of all others. I do not agree that all children should be allowed to vote if they show capability. It takes time to mature and who is going to decide. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It would be chaos. Which is something that electronic referenda are supposed to address. BTW, I don't think they're a terribly good idea in themselves since they don't address the underlying reasons why people don't get involved. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Colin Davies and I had a good discussion on this a few threads down in the "RED" discussion Yes, it was a good thread and partly inspired this one. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It takes time to mature and who is going to decide. But I'm sure there are plenty of retirees who still moan about them there young 21-year-old whipper-snappers who wouldn't know their front end from their rear :-) Yes, it takes time to mature but this is an on-going process, not a yes-you-are-no-you're-not kind of thing. A 14-year-old honours student who has thought about the issues will make a better voter than a 50-year-old assembly-line worker who only votes because he's legally required to.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It would be chaos. Which is something that electronic referenda are supposed to address. BTW, I don't think they're a terribly good idea in themselves since they don't address the underlying reasons why people don't get involved. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Colin Davies and I had a good discussion on this a few threads down in the "RED" discussion Yes, it was a good thread and partly inspired this one. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It takes time to mature and who is going to decide. But I'm sure there are plenty of retirees who still moan about them there young 21-year-old whipper-snappers who wouldn't know their front end from their rear :-) Yes, it takes time to mature but this is an on-going process, not a yes-you-are-no-you're-not kind of thing. A 14-year-old honours student who has thought about the issues will make a better voter than a 50-year-old assembly-line worker who only votes because he's legally required to.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: But I'm sure there are plenty of retirees who still moan about them there young 21-year-old whipper-snappers who wouldn't know their front end from their rear And those 21 year olds are willing (forced) to give their lives for their countries. They can vote IMO. Taka Muraoka wrote: A 14-year-old honors student who has thought about the issues will make a better voter than a 50-year-old assembly-line worker who only votes because he's legally required to. I agree this is one reason why being required to vote is not good. I would rather have 25% who care make the decisions than 100% who do not. As for the honors students (and I have children 18 & 16) many (most?) still look at the world in rather simplified terms. The one who, to be honest, is not as smart as the other, is the one who works their tail end off learning and not coasting by. That is the one who would take the time to learn what is going on. The smarter one may or may not. My point here is you will not find a fair way to decide. So make it age IMO and live with it. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
I don't think the system itself is flawed. I think the problem lies more in the fact that many people don't understand it completely, and are therefore intimidated when it comes to politics. I have a fair understanding of the system, and make some attempt to keep up-to-date, but there is still alot I don't know about and I don't always feel like taking the time to read up about it. There are certainly a fair number of people who take more time than me regarding politics, but I would guess more people take even less interest than I do. Which means most people don't know what they are even voting on when election time comes. An even smaller percentage actually gets involved enough to communicate with their representatives. You can't strictly blame the system when the means are there to have your voice heard. If someone has issues to raise, or points to make, they have ways to get their message out. The problem is the citizens do not make their elected officials accountable for their actions, at least not consistantly. If citizens were more involved, they would put more pressure on their representatives. Another problem I think is the sheer amount of law. This is intimidating in itself. What citizen can keep track of all the current laws, and decide how a new would effect things? Usually when new laws are mentioned, there is little mention of how things are currently, and how it will effect the grand scheme. They may tell you, look we have $2 billion extra for health, isn't it great!! But they won't say where that money is coming from. What is being cut, or what new tax is being raised, or are we going further into debt to pay for it? So to a true picture of what is happening behind the scenes is difficult to get. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
First of all, a pure democracy where EVERYONE votes, would result in minorities being completely ignored and possibly abused. Majority rule is not always a good thing. Secondly, a high IQ (someone brought this up) does not always make you a good voter. Life experience is a much better factor in most cases. I know when I was younger, I was more naive and idealistic which made me ignorant of how the world really works. People with higher IQs usually end up as elitists who know nothing of the lower class' plight. Taka Muraoka wrote: When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections Do you really want someone voting if they don't care? I really don't. Alternatives: 1) Ever read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein? It briefly describes a limited democracy where only veterans of the military could vote. Distinguished citizens that risked life and limb for their country. Kind of makes sense but its also kind of scary. 2) Arthur C. Clark described a different approach to government in "The Songs of Distant Earth" that I think might be less corrupt. The government was not elected, but leaders were chosen by a lottery out of the pool of mentally competent citizens and served for a short time.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
First of all, a pure democracy where EVERYONE votes, would result in minorities being completely ignored and possibly abused. Majority rule is not always a good thing. Secondly, a high IQ (someone brought this up) does not always make you a good voter. Life experience is a much better factor in most cases. I know when I was younger, I was more naive and idealistic which made me ignorant of how the world really works. People with higher IQs usually end up as elitists who know nothing of the lower class' plight. Taka Muraoka wrote: When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections Do you really want someone voting if they don't care? I really don't. Alternatives: 1) Ever read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein? It briefly describes a limited democracy where only veterans of the military could vote. Distinguished citizens that risked life and limb for their country. Kind of makes sense but its also kind of scary. 2) Arthur C. Clark described a different approach to government in "The Songs of Distant Earth" that I think might be less corrupt. The government was not elected, but leaders were chosen by a lottery out of the pool of mentally competent citizens and served for a short time.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Damn. I'm supposed to be working, which is why I haven't answered some of the replies... :-( But quickly: Jason Henderson wrote: a pure democracy where EVERYONE votes, would result in minorities being completely ignored and possibly abused This is hardly a good justification to say that low voter turnouts are a good thing! If there are certain groups that need to special consideration, then give them that special consideration, don't compensate for it by backdoor means! Jason Henderson wrote: I know when I was younger, I was more naive and idealistic which made me ignorant of how the world really works Perhaps, but idealistic is sometimes a good thing. And we all have to make our own mistakes. Jason Henderson wrote: Do you really want someone voting if they don't care? I really don't. I forget what the exact turnout in the last US election was but I seem to remember it being somewhere around 40%. Which is pretty appalling. You get down to that level and compulsory voting starts to look like the lesser of two evils. Here in Oz, a lot of people wouldn't vote if they didn't have to but given that they have to, most are conscientious enough to at least have a think about it. Jason Henderson wrote: It briefly describes a limited democracy where only veterans of the military could vote. Nah. This is absolutely insane! What about people who make a non-military contribution? Business men. Teachers. WHat if I was physically handicapped? Jason Henderson wrote: The government was not elected, but leaders were chosen by a lottery out of the pool of mentally competent citizens and served for a short time. Interesting idea. It would be hard to maintain continuity though. Was it compulsory or did you have to choice not to enter the lottery?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, I, for one American, am perfectly happy that people who don't care are not forced to cast a ballot on issues or candidates they know nothing about. I would prefer that more people were interested and informed enough to vote, but that is not the fault of the SYSTEM of government... I think interest and knowledge could be improved by re-instituting a mandatory national service requirement for all citizens, either military or non-military, but both to include mandatory training on the responsibilities of a citzen. As for special interests "Hijacking" an election, I think this is more perception than reality (and tends to balance out on both sides of most issues). If you have some examples in mind, I would welcome seeing them ...This, however is a problem that could be solved, IMO , by campaign finance reform: limit political contributions to ONLY those by individuals, and set the upper limit on an individual contribution to a reasonable amount (say $25K) per individual including any by the candidates themselves . Corporations,PACs,Unions, and the like should be expressly prohibited from contributing to individual candidates, and from funding advertizing that targets specific candidates. Getting focus away from the next election might also be accomplished by strict term limits. I would propose the the chief executive (President, PM, whatever) be limited to a two non- consecutive 6 year terms rather that the (current US practice of) two consecutive 4 year terms... Members of the upper house should be limited to two 6 year terms (whether consecutive or not), but be subject to a vote of confidence at the middle of each term (losing that would force a new election for which they were not eligible). The lower house terms should be changed to single 6 year terms, with one-third elected every two years instead of the current practice of re-electing all every two years, but all incumbents subject to a vote of confidence every two years). Some changes in the application of census results to the determination of how many representatives a state can have would be needed as well, since this is on a 10 year cycle and therefor not a multiple of 6 year terms... Representative government (there are no true democracies that I know of) is nowhere near as perfect
-
Damn. I'm supposed to be working, which is why I haven't answered some of the replies... :-( But quickly: Jason Henderson wrote: a pure democracy where EVERYONE votes, would result in minorities being completely ignored and possibly abused This is hardly a good justification to say that low voter turnouts are a good thing! If there are certain groups that need to special consideration, then give them that special consideration, don't compensate for it by backdoor means! Jason Henderson wrote: I know when I was younger, I was more naive and idealistic which made me ignorant of how the world really works Perhaps, but idealistic is sometimes a good thing. And we all have to make our own mistakes. Jason Henderson wrote: Do you really want someone voting if they don't care? I really don't. I forget what the exact turnout in the last US election was but I seem to remember it being somewhere around 40%. Which is pretty appalling. You get down to that level and compulsory voting starts to look like the lesser of two evils. Here in Oz, a lot of people wouldn't vote if they didn't have to but given that they have to, most are conscientious enough to at least have a think about it. Jason Henderson wrote: It briefly describes a limited democracy where only veterans of the military could vote. Nah. This is absolutely insane! What about people who make a non-military contribution? Business men. Teachers. WHat if I was physically handicapped? Jason Henderson wrote: The government was not elected, but leaders were chosen by a lottery out of the pool of mentally competent citizens and served for a short time. Interesting idea. It would be hard to maintain continuity though. Was it compulsory or did you have to choice not to enter the lottery?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: This is hardly a good justification to say that low voter turnouts are a good thing! I'm not saying that. I was meaning where everyone voted on every law, a true democracy. Sorry, I should have explained it better. Mob rule is not a good thing. Taka Muraoka wrote: idealistic is sometimes a good thing. And we all have to make our own mistakes. Reality is far better than idealism. Taka Muraoka wrote: most are conscientious enough to at least have a think about it. Most, but not all. Those few who aren't, may scew the vote. I would rather see only those that think about their vote do the voting. Taka Muraoka wrote: Nah. This is absolutely insane! What about people who make a non-military contribution? Business men. Teachers. WHat if I was physically handicapped? I didn't say I agreed with it. ;P Taka Muraoka wrote: Interesting idea. It would be hard to maintain continuity though. Was it compulsory or did you have to choice not to enter the lottery? No choice. If your name was called you had to serve.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Taka Muraoka wrote: When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, I, for one American, am perfectly happy that people who don't care are not forced to cast a ballot on issues or candidates they know nothing about. I would prefer that more people were interested and informed enough to vote, but that is not the fault of the SYSTEM of government... I think interest and knowledge could be improved by re-instituting a mandatory national service requirement for all citizens, either military or non-military, but both to include mandatory training on the responsibilities of a citzen. As for special interests "Hijacking" an election, I think this is more perception than reality (and tends to balance out on both sides of most issues). If you have some examples in mind, I would welcome seeing them ...This, however is a problem that could be solved, IMO , by campaign finance reform: limit political contributions to ONLY those by individuals, and set the upper limit on an individual contribution to a reasonable amount (say $25K) per individual including any by the candidates themselves . Corporations,PACs,Unions, and the like should be expressly prohibited from contributing to individual candidates, and from funding advertizing that targets specific candidates. Getting focus away from the next election might also be accomplished by strict term limits. I would propose the the chief executive (President, PM, whatever) be limited to a two non- consecutive 6 year terms rather that the (current US practice of) two consecutive 4 year terms... Members of the upper house should be limited to two 6 year terms (whether consecutive or not), but be subject to a vote of confidence at the middle of each term (losing that would force a new election for which they were not eligible). The lower house terms should be changed to single 6 year terms, with one-third elected every two years instead of the current practice of re-electing all every two years, but all incumbents subject to a vote of confidence every two years). Some changes in the application of census results to the determination of how many representatives a state can have would be needed as well, since this is on a 10 year cycle and therefor not a multiple of 6 year terms... Representative government (there are no true democracies that I know of) is nowhere near as perfect
Again, really quickly (I gotta stop posting during work hours :-()... OldRob wrote: but that is not the fault of the SYSTEM of government No, but theoretical considerations only take you so far. My original question was more along the lines of is thing working in practice? I'd be curious to know how low the turnout would have to go before you became concerned about it? 20%? 5%? What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. OldRob wrote: As for special interests "Hijacking" an election, I think this is more perception than reality Ah, but I didn't say hijacking an election. I said hijacking the political process. I was talking more about the influence that big business and other powerful entities have on the day-to-day running of a country, the laws it sets, etc. OldRob wrote: I fail to see any other form of govenment (past or present) that is even a remotely attractive alternative. Yeah, this is where I get stuck as well :-) Great post, BTW.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Again, really quickly (I gotta stop posting during work hours :-()... OldRob wrote: but that is not the fault of the SYSTEM of government No, but theoretical considerations only take you so far. My original question was more along the lines of is thing working in practice? I'd be curious to know how low the turnout would have to go before you became concerned about it? 20%? 5%? What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. OldRob wrote: As for special interests "Hijacking" an election, I think this is more perception than reality Ah, but I didn't say hijacking an election. I said hijacking the political process. I was talking more about the influence that big business and other powerful entities have on the day-to-day running of a country, the laws it sets, etc. OldRob wrote: I fail to see any other form of govenment (past or present) that is even a remotely attractive alternative. Yeah, this is where I get stuck as well :-) Great post, BTW.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. There are at least two possibilities here: 1.Either things are so screwed up that no one believes it is even worth the attempt to change. or 2.Things are so good that no one cares to change the status quo.(highly unlikely IMO :) ) I would certainly support a "No contest" result in this case (maybe even at a 20% low limit) that forced a new election with neither incumbent nor previous challengers allowed to stand for election).
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. There are at least two possibilities here: 1.Either things are so screwed up that no one believes it is even worth the attempt to change. or 2.Things are so good that no one cares to change the status quo.(highly unlikely IMO :) ) I would certainly support a "No contest" result in this case (maybe even at a 20% low limit) that forced a new election with neither incumbent nor previous challengers allowed to stand for election).
OldRob wrote: I would certainly support a "No contest" result in this case (maybe even at a 20% low limit) So it's just a question of degree. For me, 40% (somebody correct me if that figure is wrong) is worryingly low. One thing I forgot to respond to in your previous post: limiting terms for the president is a Good Thing but the same old games will be played by the political parties trying to get re-elected. This is probably shockingly naive of me but what would happen if we outlawed parties and everyone had to stand as an independent? It would be much more chaotic trying to push things through but seems to me to be more "democratic" and representative i.e. we, the people, convey to our representative our wishes who then votes on our behalf in the government.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
-
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO: I don't believe all citizens should have the right to vote. So who gets to decide who's allowde to vote? And is the moron not as much a citizen as the genius? Moronicity is in the eye of the beholder :-) I'm re-reading a book by a favourite author of mine (John Holt) in which he argues that children of any age should be afforded the rights that we normally make then wait until they're 16/18/21 before they can get as long as they accept the responsibility that goes along with it. Probably a bit radical for most people but an interesting idea. If a 12-year can demonstrate that they understand the issues and have thought about them, why not let them vote?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: So who gets to decide who's allowde to vote? And is the moron not as much a citizen as the genius? Moronicity is in the eye of the beholder I won't even suggest that I know the perfect answer to this. I consider that everyone should have the ability to become a voter, and it shouldn't be restricted by birthright. Arbitrarily drawing the line on suffrage at a certain age is just as bad. Why should it be 16/18/21 and not 35. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
OK, then. Let's turn this in a boobies thread. You asked for it! (Warning: Nudity)http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg[^] Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
Brad Jennings wrote: _You asked for it! (Warning: Nudity)http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg\[^\]_ Holy mackarel. You see why I bought a nice camera now don't you? :rolleyes:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
There are some who are there for what they can put in, but sadly many are there for what they can take out :(( Elaine (fluffy tigress emoticon) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. Yeah, that's one thing I've often said - true communism would be a wonderful thing, but pretty much the only communism the world's ever seen has suffered from utterly corrupt leadership -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
![http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg\[^\]_](http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg%5C%5B%5E%5C%5D_){kind=link}