quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

X, that is only true if you stay home and sit on your hands. If you involve yourself in the process then it isn't about who "they" decide but about which person you work hard for to get a certain nomination.

How many times in the history of our country has the government been run by other than those selected by the major parties?

I don't have a count for  you but will give you that it isn't very many. However, that is far different than sayiing you've no voice in any party. You do. Bennet in Utah wouldn't be out on his ear today if the "Party" decided everything.

It was the party that dumped him

Check your local party out sometime. There are not that many people there. A few people putting time into the party can make a major major difference

DTDT

quote:

As you know the electoral college is nothing more than a way to even out the power of each constituent state. If we simply voted in a President based on popular vote then most of the country would be left in peril to the whims of New Yorkers and Californians and Texans. With the Electoral College people in outlying states such as Iowa or Montana can feel that they have input into the system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Well, to start we have a republic, not a democracy. That is intended to keep ignorant massess from doing whatever strikes thier fancy, at least quickly.

Originally also only people who had property or other stakes in society got to vote.

That the illiterate rabble and deranged (look at the bizzare ideas positied by some of the posters on here----Infant mortality is irrelevant is the most recent one to make me laugh my ass off)get the same vote as I makes me wonder about the future of the West.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

There was a book that addressed the people's right to vote, even citizenship.  It was Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.  In the book, the only people who were citizens and had the right to vote were veterans, men and women who had served in the military.  They did not get the right to vote until after their term of service was completed.

The problem with that is obvious, only a few have the right to make the decisions for the majority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The basic formula for determining whether someone will vote is:
PB + D > C
Here, P is the probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election, and B is the perceived benefit of that person's favored political party or candidate being elected. D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting. C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting. Since P is virtually zero in most elections, PB is also near zero, and D is thus the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh C.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

I'm having serious issues with the concept of democracy. What happens to rule by the people when the people are unfit to rule? Are democratically elected politicians supposed to lead the people, or are they supposed to represent the will of the people?

quote:



After the Revolution, France was a disaster. Napoleon Bonaparte stabilized it. He was a tyrant...and probably the best thing that could have happened to France at that time.

I hate to say this, because it makes me sound like an elitist, but looking at what's happening in the US, I wonder whether the people deserve a democracy. I don't mean people with unpopular opinions, I think they should always have a right to vote their conscience, but rather people who say things like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" - I read somewhere that only 2 out of 5 Americans can name the three branches of federal government.

quote:


That means the majority of Americans are able to vote for something they are wholly unqualified to make decisions about. And that bothers me.

quote:


I don't know where I'm going with this post, I just want to get a bit of feedback. I'm not advocating for tyranny, I just wonder, what justification IS there for democracy, when the people aren't living up to their part of the bargain?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
looking at what's happening in the US, I wonder whether the people deserve a democracy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Yes, the elite love playing this card. Everyone likes to provide a new, dangerous idea, like 'democracy is corrupt'.

The bigger issue, though, that suggest to me that ideology is at play, still remains the dismissal of democracy before its actual instantiation.

quote:

Actually, if you look at opinion polls, most of Americans consistently support a single-payer plan, which of course is a more logical, coherent, intelligent mode of action than anything that the supposed representatives of American have proposed (that is, outside of flowery speeches, etc.)

quote:

So, you're not thinking, you're regurgitating some form of ideology, this common game of blame the people when things go wrong, praise business and government when anything, anything at all, goes right.

quote:

The critical thought should remain -- how to bridge the Grand Canyon between American will and its representation.

quote:

Notice that money is also a form of representation, equally manipulated. Maybe the solution lies outside of representative democracy, which equates, then, with monied democracy (i.e., aristocracy, feudalism).

Critical thought should ask, not, why not democracy?, but, rather, why still feudalism?

quote:

Ah, the specialist card. Another notorious poster likes this one.

Same card used during the financial crisis.

The critical question (outside your grasp, despite all your upward nose directionality [:D]) -- how do we eliminate false complexity?

quote:

Okay, so, the people are problematic. I'm the first to admit that.

quote:


But the problem of representation exists both as an extension and, perhaps even more, in its own capacity.

Notice how you've missed completely another critical consideration: why not direct democracy? Or, more accurately, why only direct democracy for the rich? After all, is not the stock market (and other similar electronically-oriented trading systems) not precisely a true form of direct democracy, where the vote is money instead of singularity? Remove the representative, and remove what he represents -- money, and money alone. And give the people a fucking chance for once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
There was a book that addressed the people's right to vote, even citizenship.  It was Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
I never once said 'democracy is corrupt' - I'm saying a democracy is only as good as its citizenry.

quote:

Actually, you information about Heinlein is inaccurate.

You had to successfully complete "Federal Service", not necessarily the military. The military part of "Federal Service" was just one of the options.

In the book, he specifically talked about the fact that "Federal Service" was open to anyone at all who wanted to apply, regardless of mental or physical handicap or condition. No matter what, they would be given some job to complete their "service". They could quit and leave at any time, with no repercussions. If they completed their term successfully, they thereby gained the right to vote and run for office by dint of fact that they had shown a dedication to service over self.

A bit more complex than "only military veterans".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

The 'people' you're talking about, basically the Tea Party, represent the American people even less than the government, as if that were even possible.

Also, the Tea Party were basically manufactured by a huge corporation known as Fox News, and funded by big money.

quote:

The people you don't see are the ones working their asses off and getting less and less in return each and every year. (Throw in a few intellectuals who play the increasingly risky academic game.) Despite all this, these people are often pretty reasonable, which scares the shit off out of the elite.

What I said about false complexity is palpable -- false complexity, to give a formal definition, is any form of complexity whose primary function or reason for continued existence is mystification of manipulation -- the U.S. government and financial systems are elevated into a pseudo-science so that ordinary people feel intimidated out of expressing (or worse, properly experiencing) their rightful sense of abuse. It's as if the U.S. Civil War was a giant waste of time -- a more efficient, more manipulative form of slavery had already been invented that would inevitably have replaced the cruder previous form.

quote:


A tyranny of the majority -- we should at least give it a try, right? Tyranny of the super-minority is getting old, and cannot address most of the problems of our day.

Plus, direct democracy would give the people more incentive to engage. It could replace sports and gambling in terms of popularity! Talk about cultural progress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

GUV!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

GUV!

gtfo my thread with this shit and go make your own.

quote:


I see your point, but I don't know if the complexity is designed to confuse or manipulate. Perhaps we see complexity differently, but to stick to the example of government...how many years of study do you think it would take to become a competent Supreme Court justice? How many years of experience? Is the complexity designed to manipulate, or is it the result of centuries worth of precedents that all affect the way the Constitution is interpreted, not to mention the Constitution itself, which is more of an outline than a manual.

Are you up for that job? Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8


I'd prefer myself to Obama's new candidate to replace John Paul Stevens, who really isn't all that experienced.

I'd prefer myself to Bush. I scored higher on my SATs. [:D]