26-09-2003 20:18									#31
	Remove this text

While nice in theory, who decides who's stupid?

	26-09-2003 20:20									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How about we not go down that road -- that would result in ad hominems getting out of control.

	26-09-2003 20:39									#33
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

You just like to say 'ad hominem' don't you, MrFun?

	26-09-2003 20:52									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Elok What if the minority we're trying to deny rights to is Stupid People?

Don't we already have that system? About 50% of those elgible don't bother to vote!

	26-09-2003 20:55									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

a little factoid:
a strong direct democracy exists in Switzerland.

	26-09-2003 21:01									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Yes, but the people on Jerry Springer could IN THEORY effect my destiny in some way, and I think something is deeply wrong with that in and of itself. I'm not just talking about the degenerates on stage. Most of them are probably convicted felons anyway. But do you realize that most of the sickos in the audience have the right to vote?
And the answer to Rah's question is very simple. On the way to the ballots, open up a high-voltage electrical socket at eye level and post a giant note that says, "DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PUT YOUR FINGER IN HERE!" Quick, convenient sorting.

	26-09-2003 21:21									#37
	Suffering from ads?

But what about people that can't read or read english. Should you be denied the right to vote because you can't read . Blind people? That's the problem of devising test. (even though I must admit that I really liked yours ) Every test will have a weakness or could be twisted to discriminate.

	26-09-2003 21:26									#38
	Tired of ads?

quote: "secure internet" = oxymoron

wrong. it's not.

it's called a standalone workstation.

	26-09-2003 21:43									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If you can't read, how are you going to read the names on the ballot?

	26-09-2003 23:14									#40
	Suffering from ads?

There are many people that can't read that can still recognize a name. I'd bet that 85%+ of the illiterate in the US would recognize the name BUSH. Blind people can get assistance.

	26-09-2003 23:16									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by rah Should you be denied the right to vote because you can't read .

That's how it works in Florida.

	26-09-2003 23:20									#42
	Support Apolyton

We're talking theory, not goose stepping reality.
Do you approve of it?

	26-09-2003 23:29									#43
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by skywalker The government cannot maintain something against the will of the people for more than four years max,

Not true. The US government has maintained an embargo against Cuba for forty years, despite the fact that for the last twenty, at least, most Americans are against it. It'sw just not an issue that drive people to vote.

	26-09-2003 23:44									#44
	Remove this text

And if it's not a big enough issue to drive people to vote, then does it really matter?

	27-09-2003 01:40									#45
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc That's how it works in Florida.

Yes, but Pat Buchanan won't live forever. What you're suggesting is only a temporary solution.
And I don't think anybody who can't read, and thus probably has no clue what any of the candidates think or stand for, doesn't really need to vote. As for the blind, you can write "DO NOT PUT YOUR FINGER IN HERE" in braille, can't you? 'Course, there's a risk that they would put their fingers in by accident while feeling the letters, but no scheme is perfect.

	27-09-2003 01:53									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Please note, John, that if you want a full democracy (as opposed to the current republic), you had better be prepared to spend several hours each day voting. Part of the reason we elect people to do it for us is we don't have the time (or wish to find the time) to investigate every issue and vote on it.

I think, however, that a compromise position could be reached whereby certain issues were decided by referrendum... but then the question is how to decide which issues.

-Arrian

	28-09-2003 07:10									#47
	Got spare money?

quote: Please note, John, that if you want a full democracy (as opposed to the current republic), you had better be prepared to spend several hours each day voting.

Well maybe not necessarily that much time, and also don't forget that you don't have to vote on everything. I don't have a position on every issue.

I don't see a problem witht his though. It would be the intensity of politics that Athens had in ancient Greece. It would really force people to question the world, think about things, and try to elect better leaders.

I disagree with skywalker. When you elect a leader, you still are voting for somethings that you disagree with. And also, a leader will still do some things that the public doesn't want if they are popular enough to get away with it.

A huge example of reasons to give the public more control was Vietnam. The nation didn't want it, but in our 'democracy' that didn't seem to matter and by the time our 'democracy' enabled tthe public to get what it wanted, 3 and a half million Vietnamese were dead.

Also, allowing the public to vote on declarations of war would eliminate those small scale wars that don't kick a politician out but the public might not want. Examples are everything we have done in Latin America, all of the tyrannical regimes we set up to make us richer.

As for the test, I don't think they could be slanted to hurt minorities. If the questions only had to do with the candidate and the answers were contained in a pamphlet or whatever, I don't see how it could happen.

And remember, our government is supposed to be 'of the people, by the people, for the people.' My system would be a whole lot more reflective of that statement then the current one. The whole idea of democracy is the people being allowed to make decisions, not just the leaders, and that exactly is what my system is.

	28-09-2003 08:09									#48
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed quote: "secure internet" = oxymoron wrong. it's not. it's called a standalone workstation.

standalone workstation != internet though

	28-09-2003 08:28									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I believe the US needs to move more towards true Democracy than this system we have now.

1. Abolish the electoral college
Sorry, but a true popular election should decide the presidency.

2. Term limits for Congress
Senile puppets like Strom Thurmond illustrate why there should be term limits for Congress. This would also allow for a greater turnover of representatives. IIRC, incumbents have like a 90% re-election rate. It's so silly.

3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits
Lifetime appointments are a mistake. I think the people should elect judges or vote on them in elections based upon executive appointments. I'd like to see the executive branch still make appointments, but then Congress, then a direct election by the public should be needed to approve judicial appointments.

4. Parliamentary election of House members
No more gerrymandering like in Texas. No more "super majority" districts where minorities get screwed.

	28-09-2003 08:38									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits Lifetime appointments are a mistake. I think the people should elect judges or vote on them in elections based upon executive appointments. I'd like to see the executive branch still make appointments, but then Congress, then a direct election by the public should be needed to approve judicial appointments.

Wouldn't work. The approval wouldn't happen at a fixed time, so having potentially multiple election at an unknown time EVERY SINGLE TIME you needed to replace a judge would be a nightmare.

	28-09-2003 10:33									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits

Not a good idea I don't think. Judges are supposed to interpret the constitution the way it was meant to be interpreted. What is not right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right. Now if the people want to change the laws, then that can be done through the legislative system. I just don't like the idea of judges just deciding whatever is popular just so they can be re-elected.

Speaking of term limits, do you think they should have them for president? I mean maybe someday we might get a good president and we'll want to elect him for more then 2 terms.

	28-09-2003 11:44									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: A huge example of reasons to give the public more control was Vietnam. The nation didn't want it, but in our 'democracy' that didn't seem to matter and by the time our 'democracy' enabled tthe public to get what it wanted, 3 and a half million Vietnamese were dead.

Actually that is wrong. Public support for Vietnam was always above 50% until the early 70s.

quote: 2. Term limits for Congress Senile puppets like Strom Thurmond illustrate why there should be term limits for Congress. This would also allow for a greater turnover of representatives. IIRC, incumbents have like a 90% re-election rate. It's so silly.

Then you have a bunch of people who don't know how government is supposed to work come in every some odd years. What would happen is that the PARTIES would have greater control over members, because they'd be the ones telling them what to do... the members themselves would be lost.

quote: 3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits Lifetime appointments are a mistake. I think the people should elect judges or vote on them in elections based upon executive appointments. I'd like to see the executive branch still make appointments, but then Congress, then a direct election by the public should be needed to approve judicial appointments.

Judges are elected in states and they are the most crooked judges you will find. They usually vote on the peoples' emotions and not on what the law is (which is what they are there for). Remember it was APPOINTED federal judges that desegregated schools while the state judges let them stay seperated by race because that's what their constituents wanted.