"
IMSilver wrote:
Democracy is a load of crap. It's just the same families from before using puppets and the media to rule from the shadows instead. You're all sheeple.
If you are talking about politicians and corporate media setting the stage, that would be another topic.
"
Everyone that make a bit of research and understand the positions of the candidates would be allowed to vote. It's not like there would be dozens of hours of research on each candidates would be needed, maybe 2-3 hours to make a legit opinion of each candidates. If someone isn't willing to do that much, how can you say they are qualified to vote? Otherwise, why not let childrens vote?
Because you are advocating removing just representation. And I would think if most of your population would keep repeatedly vote for terrible candidates, your country is already damned.
|
Posted bydeathflower#0444on Apr 21, 2018, 7:07:55 AM
|
"
Templar_G wrote:
I really wish people would stop pretending Russia is this big bad place where Putin is a dictator.
He has support from his people so he gets elected.
I know it's super hard to imagine.
Did you know that before Putin's first presidency, Russia had close to a 100 different political parties? And did you know that after Putin's first presidency, the number of those parties dropped to seven? And did you know that until a decision by ECHR in 2011, opposition parties were denied access to elections?
Putin IS a dictator. Claiming anything else is just plain silly. Not all dictators are hated by their people.
"
faerwin wrote:
Everyone that make a bit of research and understand the positions of the candidates would be allowed to vote. It's not like there would be dozens of hours of research on each candidates would be needed, maybe 2-3 hours to make a legit opinion of each candidates. If someone isn't willing to do that much, how can you say they are qualified to vote? Otherwise, why not let childrens vote?
How do you screen the validity of 'informed voters' though?
|
|
|
What's wrong with dictators? I'd love to be one.
|
Posted byIMSilver#3016on Apr 21, 2018, 7:28:52 AM
|
|
It's not exactly that.
Requiring knowledge of candidates platforms before being able to vote paired with anonymous candidates means that the two party system would collapse. As it is, this system mostly push the agenda of a party rather than the agenda of an individual (the party is much more influenced by outside lobbies than an individual, especially when anonymous, could be).
Removing the need to be accepted by a party that's essentially bought out would allow politicians that aren't corrupt to emerge much more often. It would also allow people that have great ideas/plans to be able to come forward with them rather than to thrown in the oubliettes because they aren't as charismatic or because their ideas do not align with the agenda of a party. Finally, it would allow independents to have an actual chance at being elected, provided they show real ideas and real plans.
If anything, it would empower the voting base rather than just selecting the prow of a ship.
It would still be just representation. It would be a right to be allowed to pass a test to be allowed to vote. The test would need to be rather easy but still require knowledge of the electoral platforms. Knowledge of those platforms should be available to be read before taking the test, maybe even during it. The goal wouldn't be to suppress voters, it would be to inform them. Finally, passing the test would allow the person to vote whenever it is convenient to them rather than in a very strict window of time.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Apr 21, 2018, 7:29:32 AMAlpha Member
|
"
Anonymous1749704 wrote:
How do you screen the validity of 'informed voters' though?
The simplest way would be a multiple answers test. It's easy and quick to verify and doesn't take too long to complete. It is also easy to complete for illiterate people if there's someone there to read questions/possible answers for them.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Apr 21, 2018, 7:32:29 AMAlpha Member
|
"
faerwin wrote:
how could it be racist? I'm explicitly suggesting a way for minorities/woman/handicapped to be able to run a campaign without the possibility of discrimination being used against them (or anyone, really).
Your idea isn't racist, but that won't stop crazy liberals from saying it is and protesting.
You notice I'm using the word crazy right? These are the same people who say that treating people equally is racist, and treating people differently based on skin color isn't racist.
|
Posted byKhoranth#3239on Apr 21, 2018, 8:53:34 AM
|
"
faerwin wrote:
It's not exactly that.
Requiring knowledge of candidates platforms before being able to vote paired with anonymous candidates means that the two party system would collapse. As it is, this system mostly push the agenda of a party rather than the agenda of an individual (the party is much more influenced by outside lobbies than an individual, especially when anonymous, could be).
Removing the need to be accepted by a party that's essentially bought out would allow politicians that aren't corrupt to emerge much more often. It would also allow people that have great ideas/plans to be able to come forward with them rather than to thrown in the oubliettes because they aren't as charismatic or because their ideas do not align with the agenda of a party. Finally, it would allow independents to have an actual chance at being elected, provided they show real ideas and real plans.
If anything, it would empower the voting base rather than just selecting the prow of a ship.
It would still be just representation. It would be a right to be allowed to pass a test to be allowed to vote. The test would need to be rather easy but still require knowledge of the electoral platforms. Knowledge of those platforms should be available to be read before taking the test, maybe even during it. The goal wouldn't be to suppress voters, it would be to inform them. Finally, passing the test would allow the person to vote whenever it is convenient to them rather than in a very strict window of time.
I'm gonna facepalm. Are you saying that people don't know who Donald Trump is? And they don't know he has next to no experience in politics? No, they do. People who vote for him really don't care about that. Obama has very little political experience before he became the president too. Most people vote on their "gut feel" rather than research and knowledge on the candidates.
|
Posted bydeathflower#0444on Apr 21, 2018, 8:57:55 AM
|
|
meh, I can't really spend my time pleasing crazy people since their demands (in this case) are not logical.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Apr 21, 2018, 8:58:59 AMAlpha Member
|
"
deathflower wrote:
"
faerwin wrote:
It's not exactly that.
Requiring knowledge of candidates platforms before being able to vote paired with anonymous candidates means that the two party system would collapse. As it is, this system mostly push the agenda of a party rather than the agenda of an individual (the party is much more influenced by outside lobbies than an individual, especially when anonymous, could be).
Removing the need to be accepted by a party that's essentially bought out would allow politicians that aren't corrupt to emerge much more often. It would also allow people that have great ideas/plans to be able to come forward with them rather than to thrown in the oubliettes because they aren't as charismatic or because their ideas do not align with the agenda of a party. Finally, it would allow independents to have an actual chance at being elected, provided they show real ideas and real plans.
If anything, it would empower the voting base rather than just selecting the prow of a ship.
It would still be just representation. It would be a right to be allowed to pass a test to be allowed to vote. The test would need to be rather easy but still require knowledge of the electoral platforms. Knowledge of those platforms should be available to be read before taking the test, maybe even during it. The goal wouldn't be to suppress voters, it would be to inform them. Finally, passing the test would allow the person to vote whenever it is convenient to them rather than in a very strict window of time.
I'm gonna facepalm. Are you saying that people don't know who Donald Trump is? And they don't know he has next to no experience in politics? No, they do. People who vote for him really don't care about that. Obama has very little political experience before he became the president too. Most people vote on their "gut feel" rather than research and knowledge on the candidates.
Yes, it's the EXACT reason why politics need an overhaul and that it start being based on competence and voted by people that know what* they are voting for.
*by what, I mean their plans if they get elected.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Apr 21, 2018, 9:00:47 AMAlpha Member
|
"
faerwin wrote:
meh, I can't really spend my time pleasing crazy people since their demands (in this case) are not logical.
I'm serious when I say: if you worked for a prominent company in the USA, and said what you said under your real name, the crazy liberals would protest against you for racism, and you'd probably be fired. Things are getting really bad here in the USA.
I never talk politics online, under my name, on Facebook ect. I've got a house and family, and it is too great a risk.
Last edited by Khoranth#3239 on Apr 21, 2018, 9:08:29 AM
|
Posted byKhoranth#3239on Apr 21, 2018, 9:06:58 AM
|
