Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ANOTHER Political Quiz
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 102 (725849)
05-02-2014 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dogmafood
05-02-2014 10:59 AM


Re: Political Math
No wonder its all screwed up...everybody has 300% worth of opinions.
LOL, but not how it works:
Message 1
My views match 99% of Green Party views, 97% of Democrat Party views, 71% of Socialist Party views, 39% of Libertarian Party views, and 4% of Republican Party views.
Too bad they don't isolate Tea Party views ... for the corporate fascists ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 10:59 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 102 (725851)
05-02-2014 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dogmafood
05-02-2014 10:59 AM


representation
No wonder its all screwed up...everybody has 300% worth of opinions.
And by the same token no one candidate represents all my views on all the topics.
Perhaps one should vote\elect 3 or 4 people instead of one?
For instance say you can vote for 3 different people for congress, no two votes for the same person.
This would tend to reduce the impact of single issue votes and break up the two party system.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 10:59 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 4:21 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 18 of 102 (725854)
05-02-2014 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dogmafood
05-02-2014 10:59 AM


Re: Political Math
ProtoTypical writes:
No wonder its all screwed up...everybody has 300% worth of opinions.
I, for one, have at least three opinions on every issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 10:59 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 19 of 102 (725863)
05-02-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
05-02-2014 11:13 AM


Re: representation
Perhaps one should vote\elect 3 or 4 people instead of one?
I think that we should stop electing people altogether and instead we should vote on issues directly.
The idea that I am represented by my member of parliament is pretty thin. I can barely talk to the guy let alone get him to represent my opinion on any given matter. He really only represents the people that agree with him.
I think that most people are quite frightened by the idea of democracy and our systems are set up to avoid it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 11:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 4:47 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 20 of 102 (725864)
05-02-2014 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dogmafood
05-02-2014 4:21 PM


Let the Internet rule!
He really only represents the people that agree with him.
In a direct democracy you would probably be on the losing side just as often as now. All but the most wishy-washy lunkheads would lose a good protion of the time (except for ringo who has at least three opinions on most anything most of the time). Would you then say that direct democracy does not represent your opinion?
I think that most people are quite frightened by the idea of democracy and our systems are set up to avoid it.
Maybe because we already know that direct democracy is poison for the minority? Maybe because we fear that in the heat of a dangerous time the majority might fall to the passions of a strongman and do away with democracy altogether?
What checks and balances are there on the powers of the majority in a direct democracy? And what would stop the majority from overturning those checks by a simple show of hands?
Edited by AZPaul3, : title
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 4:21 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 5:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 7:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 21 of 102 (725867)
05-02-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AZPaul3
05-02-2014 4:47 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
In a direct democracy you would probably be on the losing side just as often as now
At least my vote would get counted. As it is now I do not really have any say on particular issues at all.
What checks and balances are there on the powers of the majority in a direct democracy?
This is the fear that I am talking about. We don't really trust the people to make the right decisions.
The same checks and balances that there are now. The vote for teaching creationism in school never comes up because there is a law regarding the separation of church and state. If the people want to overturn that law then so be it but the threshold should be high. If that threshold is surpassed then so be it. That's what the people want and in a democracy the people should get what they want. Of course they have to live with the consequences so when they start teaching Islam in the public schools in Dearborn Mi. that comes with the deal.
Take an issue like going to war. Do you think the Iraq war would have happened if there was a direct vote of the people about it? Do you think that the evidence in support of going to war would have needed to be much more evident?
Or Taxes. What do you think the vote would be if there were a binding plebiscite about what to do about tax rates or gun control or science funding?
I see the operational difficulties like how to form the issues and pose the questions but I also see the vast potential. People are more kind than not and we should trust that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 4:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 7:29 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 12:05 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 11:28 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 22 of 102 (725870)
05-02-2014 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dogmafood
05-02-2014 5:30 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
We don't really trust the people to make the right decisions.
You have that quite right. All the issues you cited are major cases in point. War? We'd be at war with Russia right now over the Ukraine. At one time or another we would have been at war with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Canada, Japan (again) and Mexico if the passions of the people ruled. If it were left up to "society", at times in the not too distant past given a spike in popular passions, freedom of religion would have been abandoned along with freedom of conscience, speech, search and seizure, trial by jury. One good thing would be that well prior to Sandy Hook, probably in response to Columbine, guns would be out, but we would expect democratic votes to force opponents to surrender their guns at gun point Waco style. Irony.
As we have seen so many times in so many ways you just cannot trust humans with the tasks of government. Law must rule if society is to function without the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. In a direct democracy the rule of law is replaced by the rule of emotions. Everyone's individual rights would be trampled on sooner or later. Just look at the past passions that so grabbed society only to be quelled by law, court, congress once cooler heads prevailed. This republic has a piss poor record to be sure but arguably much better than rule by fleeting emotion.
We will have a difference of opinion on the role of the instruments of governance. I do not trust the inflamed majority to do right at any turn on any issue. History is too bleak to be ignored.
As for society getting what it wants regardless of the costs, having to live with the consequences ...
Government of the People, By the People, For the People requires government that will protect the People ... From the People. Remember that great political philosopher Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." That may have come from a cartoon but it was not said in jest. When it comes to human rights and the long term best interests of society now and for our children later, we are our own worst enemy. Direct democracy would magnify this most human fault to disaster.
But that's just one exceptionally eminent opinion. I'm sure there are lesser ones.
Edited by AZPaul3, : puncheashun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 5:30 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dogmafood, posted 05-03-2014 10:21 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 05-03-2014 11:18 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 102 (725871)
05-02-2014 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AZPaul3
05-02-2014 4:47 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule! with Occupy Rules
What checks and balances are there on the powers of the majority in a direct democracy? And what would stop the majority from overturning those checks by a simple show of hands?
Interesting perspective from the Occupy Movement, where consensus rather than majority was the rule and dissenting voices were more powerful than assenting: if you disagreed your opinion was heard and concepts were altered to accommodate you.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 4:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2014 12:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 24 of 102 (725879)
05-03-2014 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
05-02-2014 7:30 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule! with Occupy Rules
Interesting, yes. Though we have to accept that it isn't that hard to build a consensus of like minded people brought together to achieve the same political goals. I would like to think that if the movement had gone on for some time it could have shown us whether consensus government can be maintained without devolving into competing interest groups. That would have been instructive.
Does anyone know of any longer lived organizations that lived by consensus arrangement? Especially ones that successfully incorporated the disparate views of a wider society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 7:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dogmafood, posted 05-03-2014 10:24 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 25 of 102 (725899)
05-03-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by AZPaul3
05-02-2014 7:29 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
When it comes to human rights and the long term best interests of society now and for our children later, we are our own worst enemy. Direct democracy would magnify this most human fault to disaster.
Ah yes, the great unwashed masses who don't know what is best for them or what they really want. That is just bogus fear mongering and completely wrong headed. Every advance that we have made has come from popular uprising against the tyranny of oligarchs, monarchs and tyrants. Every travesty has come at the hands of individuals and strong men acting against the wishes of the many.
Switzerland has some elements of direct democracy and they have not devolved into mayhem. In fact they stand out as reasonable peace loving people who tend not to go around invading others or abusing the minority. They tend not to make drastic changes in direction or throw out ideas that work. Indeed they are rather conservative.
At one time or another we would have been at war with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Canada, Japan (again) and Mexico if the passions of the people ruled.
I have to say that this is completely unsupported. The only way that we could know this would be to actually ask the people and we have never done that. Again, do you think that an invasion of Iraq would have passed a popular vote? Do you really think that Americans would vote to go to war with Russia over Ukraine? I don't see it. And on the other hand maybe we should invade Saudi Arabia or N Korea or Rwanda.
If we really believe in the concept of democracy then we shouldn't be so afraid to actually try it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 7:29 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 26 of 102 (725900)
05-03-2014 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by AZPaul3
05-03-2014 12:07 AM


Re: Let the Internet rule! with Occupy Rules
There is some element of consensus gov't in Nunavut and in the Guernsey Islands.
Consensus government in Canada - Wikipedia
Consensus democracy - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2014 12:07 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 27 of 102 (725901)
05-03-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dogmafood
05-02-2014 5:30 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
ProtyTypical writes:
Do you think the Iraq war would have happened if there was a direct vote of the people about it?
Yes.
And a month later there would have been a vote to pull out. And the first time there was a hint of a terrorist threat there would have been a vote to go back in. And the first time one of our soldiers got shot there would have been a vote to pull out again. There wouldn't have been an effective war because the soldiers would have spent all their time packing and unpacking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2014 5:30 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dogmafood, posted 05-03-2014 1:31 PM ringo has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 28 of 102 (725904)
05-03-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
05-03-2014 12:05 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
You are imagining the worst. Is that the way that you would have voted? I know that it is not the way that I would have voted and I do not know anybody who would have voted that way.
The only way to know is to have the vote. It would be cool if we could craft an experiment to see what the results would be. Given that we are all so timid and sold on the idea that we need 'special' people to tell us what we want we could make it non binding to begin with.
It is really only those who enjoy some exclusive benefit of the status quo who would be against the idea. I agree that those people should be worried but only because they stand to lose their unfair advantages. I wonder how many of us are actually interested in equality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 12:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 2:39 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 29 of 102 (725905)
05-03-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dogmafood
05-03-2014 1:31 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
ProtoTypical writes:
It would be cool if we could craft an experiment to see what the results would be.
We have those experiments all the time. They're called "opinion polls". Is there any reason to believe that people's opinions would be less flighty if they mattered? At best, it would take a while for people to get used to the fact that they should think before they vote.
ProtoTypical writes:
... we need 'special' people to tell us what we want....
Have you ever read legislation? We need people who can wrangle out the tiny details. That ain't us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dogmafood, posted 05-03-2014 1:31 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dogmafood, posted 05-03-2014 3:37 PM ringo has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 30 of 102 (725908)
05-03-2014 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
05-03-2014 2:39 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
Is there any reason to believe that people's opinions would be less flighty if they mattered?
Are they flighty now? How would you support that assertion? Can you reference some opinion polls that would indicate this?
At best, it would take a while for people to get used to the fact that they should think before they vote.
No doubt that there would be plenty of teething problems. It likely needs to be generational change that starts in kindergarten. Start by teaching children how to make decisions and what the consequences are.
Have you ever read legislation? We need people who can wrangle out the tiny details. That ain't us.
We can have those people. They just wouldn't be in charge.
If the idea of democracy has any credibility at all then it makes good sense that we should use the model that allows for the most participation possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 2:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 4:33 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024