ANOTHER Political Quiz

The question isn't about being "allowed" to vote; it's about what we're allowed (or required) to vote for.Should we be allowed to vote on the weather? I'm going to propose a referendum on having winter every second year.

...and you'll be right behind me in line for a referendum to make Pi = 3.00000.

I've always wonder why creos are not interested in teaching this 'controversy'?

So now you're anti-skiing? Have you no shame?

They would think the controversy is about whether cherry or apple is best.

Same difference. My question was; when there is a vote why shouldn't the people affected be allowed to participate? Representative democracy is neither representative nor democratic.When I read the Wiki definition it says "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally..." That is what I think of when I think democracy. Of course nothing like that exists in the world today.What I am trying to flesh out is why we are willing to kill and die for a concept that we do not actually believe in and are in fact afraid of. I am really curious about the basis of that fear. The next time there is a vote on the weather we should all be allowed to participate. What about the climate? Should we be allowed to vote on that or should we rely on our reps who are dining with the oil company lobbyists?Edited by ProtoTypical, : title

I'm not against you skiing. I just don't want to have to do it every time I leave the house.

And the answer, many posts back, was that most people don't want to participate in every niggling detail - just like most people don't want to change their own oil. You are. in fact, allowed to participate if you so choose by lobbying your representative on every detail. With direct democracy, only those who choose to participate in the details get a say; those who are less detail-oriented are effectively disenfranchised. That's a good example of how worthless argument by definition is. You'll have to be more specific. I am personally not "willing" to either kill or die for anything.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the objections to your proposal.There are advantages to operating a sizable country or state as a democratic republic rather than as a direct democracy. One of the advantages is that I don't have to be an expert on every conceivable thing on earth, and that I can spend most of my time doing the things I am particularly good at, which does not include deciding on a zoning issue on some street in this town that I never visit or whether a stop light ought to be installed on a street I'm not likely to visit.In fact there are some problems for which I value the opinions of the experts far more than I value the opinion of the mob. I don't trust most people's ability to make themselves experts. I am a little more trusting of their ability to recognize someone else's expertise when they see it.No, I don't want to have people in Tennessee vote on whether they can hog all the water from the Chattahoochee river before it flows into Georgia. I want some smart people representing each state to sit down and work out a plan. I don't want to have to quit my day job to weigh in on things.

That is a red herring. There is no need to participate any more than you want to. Most people don't want to vote at all. Would you take that fact as a justification for prohibiting everyone from voting? What? That makes no sense. So that makes you a communist/fascist/pacifist now eh?Labels aside you can rest assured that your representatives are certainly willing to kill on your behalf and if you weren't such an old fart they wouldn't hesitate to send you up to the front lines.

Hmmm. And then you go on to tell us how you don't want the people of Tennessee making some retarded decision. I don't see why this should change although I can see a potential increase in knowledge as people engage the issues. Especially when you start preparing them from childhood for their civic duties.Why do you assume that we would not be able or willing to consult the experts? Also, I see it as a voluntary thing so if you don't want to vote or feel unqualified to have an opinion then you don't vote. I agree. So then don't vote on those issues. If it is a municipal issue outside of your municipality then you wouldn't have a vote anyway. The advantage is that if the issue did concern you then you would have a say that was actually counted. Why should you have to quit your day job to cast a vote on something so obvious as taking all the water before it gets to Georgia? So the vote is "Should we take all the water from the Gitchagoomee river before them Georgians get it?" Your answer is no. How long did that take? Eleven seconds?Again, set aside the question of 'how' we could do it and consider the question 'if' we should even try. In theory, in a society where all citizens are equal, shouldn't everyone have an equal say regarding issues that affect them?

Why do you keep talking about "prohibiting"? I'm not saying we should prohibit anything. I'm saying we should allow people to delegate a representtive to do the work for them - the same way they delegate a plumber. I'm saying they shouldn't be forced to do their own plumbing or live with bad plumbing. Yup. I'm a Canadian. My representatives have done no such thing in my lifetime.