Your thoughts on freedom of voting and the uneducated masses

Users who are viewing this thread

13 Spider Bloody Chain

Grandmaster Knight
I have a question for you guys:

If you were a legislator in a modern, developed country with a government system similar to that of the US, UK, France, Germany, etc. (the "free nations"), how much of the government would you let the uneducated masses control?

And that leads to this question: should people below a certain level of intelligence and knowledge be banned from voting? Or should we let anyone vote just for the sake of "being nice"?
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
I have a question for you guys:

If you were a legislator in a modern, developed country with a government system similar to that of the US, UK, France, Germany, etc. (the "free nations"), how much of the government would you let the uneducated masses control?

And that leads to this question: should people below a certain level of intelligence and knowledge be banned from voting? Or should we let anyone vote just for the sake of "being nice"?
Thats discrimination and against the U.S. Constatution, and I personaly beileive that there is no non-corrupt way to segrigate the masses from the informed and ignorent.

I'm just tired of Americans being sheep and only voting for the person whos name theyve heard the most, or promises unreachable goals.

Mabe they could do a simple political test for getting your voting license, Like simple stuff, dunno though.
 
There is no reason. Those in power (the corporations) are perfectly happy
the way things are. If I could instill a revolution, things would be different,
but if I was a legislator, of course I'd be a part of the system. No other
option really. Even war heroes in the US who oppose it get taken down.
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
If you were a legislator in a modern, developed country with a government system similar to that of the US, UK, France, Germany, etc. (the "free nations"), how much of the government would you let the uneducated masses control?
Nil
And that leads to this question: should people below a certain level of intelligence and knowledge be banned from voting? Or should we let anyone vote just for the sake of "being nice"?
Voting should be scrapped all together.
 
Anyone without a degree shouldn't be allowed to vote. The majority of people are too stupid to make an informed political decision, that's why Bush is in power.
 
Hræfn said:
Anyone without a degree shouldn't be allowed to vote. The majority of people are too stupid to make an informed political decision, that's why Bush is in power.

Going off on what Hraefen is saying, should only the educated be allowed to vote?
 
calandale said:
Hell no. Any elitism is a bad move towards controlling the
populace. The more idiots vote, the safer the status quo.

On the other hand, would you want your government to be, at the very least, heavily influenced by people who don;t know a thing about the world outside of their little suburb?
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
On the other hand, would you want your government to be, at the very least, heavily influenced by people who don;t know a thing about the world outside of their little suburb?

It isn't now. It's run by those with the largest stake.
 
How can you test intelligence anyway? IQ testing is hardly viable. Half of it is just based on vocabulary. Also intelligence does not necessary mean you understand politics or the world around you. NOT TO MENTION a certain level of people skills are needed to make a good judge of the society you are in. There is no way to get rid of the stupid assholes and stop them doing stupid things.
 
Yoshiboy said:
How can you test intelligence anyway? IQ testing is hardly viable. Half of it is just based on vocabulary. Also intelligence does not necessary mean you understand politics or the world around you. NOT TO MENTION a certain level of people skills are needed to make a good judge of the society you are in. There is no way to get rid of the stupid assholes and stop them doing stupid things.
Yes there is. I should be the only person to vote.

Ahem. I really would like to bar the stupid from the polls, but I can't find a method that isn't wide open to abuse.
 
This is why the single leader in supreme power system has worked for most of our history until some idiot got lucky and came to power.
 
The best way to solve this should be educating the masses. Perhaps some sort of obligatory course.
 
You can't help some people. They refuse to be educated.

You might be able to do it by getting lots of small groups of people to vote for their representative, the representatives gather into a group and elect one of their own as a 'higher' representative and so on until you got the overall leader.
While everyone would have a say, it would stop people from voting for a leader they know nothing about.
 
Not really. Feudal positions are hereditary.
The knights fight for the king in return for land, and the peasants work the land in return for protection from their local knight.
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
I have a question for you guys:

If you were a legislator in a modern, developed country with a government system similar to that of the US, UK, France, Germany, etc. (the "free nations"), how much of the government would you let the uneducated masses control?

And that leads to this question: should people below a certain level of intelligence and knowledge be banned from voting? Or should we let anyone vote just for the sake of "being nice"?

I hate the way democracies work. The stupid make stupid decisions, the smart make selfish decisions, and the wise get ignored. So in my ideal world the system would be a benevolent dictatorship, with a meritocracy (test-based) system that chooses all public servants and a new leader when the old one dies. The meritocracy would be strictly compartmentalized: each agency would have control over its own aspect of society but would be strictly prohibited from interfering with any of the other spheres without the permission of another agency. There would be a council of the heads of agencies that would meet to discuss possible infractions of this rule, and a majority vote is sufficient to allow the other agencies to remove one of the department heads and/or reorganize that agency to remove corruption (The Leader can veto, in which case a two-thirds vote is required). Within each agency, it is also possible for a 2/3rds majority of the people in the agency to remove their leader and request a new one. In addition, there would be a department dedicated to collecting and responding to anonymous tips from people in the other agencies, assuring that no viewpoints are ignored in the process. The role of the Leader is to act as a balancer, and as such the tests devoted to choosing a new Leader would be heavily weighted towards choosing someone fair and informed. The "masses" have no real control in the system, however anyone is eligible to become a member of one of the departments or even to become the Leader, as the meritocratic tests are mandatory for the entire society. Refusal of a post is permissible, although if there has been a chronic shortage it may sometimes be compulsory.

I guess you could call my system a bureaucratic government?


A pity I've devoted myself to serving the current system, even with all its flaws. Much as I esteem my own ideas, I'm not willing to force them on anyone else. And given how much I like bureaucracies (when they are allowed to function properly, that is... with a minimum of political intervention) that's why I've decided to work in the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom