I think part of what is missing is this misunderstanding that I want a dictatorship; which, while being the best form of governance is fraught with the difficulty of finding the right person amidst a sea of unworthy. What is being missed here is that voting is not the problem, the problem is who gets to vote. With no constraint on what is required to vote you end up with mob rule. I am not opposed to the idea of every single citizen voting, what I am opposed to is that every simple citizen be allowed to vote even if they have no idea what they are talking about.

We won't let just anyone call themselves a medical doctor because there is a life or death responsibility with the position, one must prove themselves sufficiently knowledgeable. Medicine is the life or death of one person at a time, politics is the life or death of millions (sometimes even billions).

I'll expand upon it later, but for now i've got class.

I don't mind the idea of dictatorships, the problem with them is that many historical dictatorships have no constraints to power. It also sucks if u have a bad leader, imagine having George Bush or Gordon Brown as leader forever!

Elective dictatorships are a bit better as at least someone gets elected to power after death.



There's a huge problem with that idea. Firstly who decides the requirements to vote and at what stage of intelligence are you eligble to vote at? It also means that in the election process those people who can't vote can basically not be catered for as they are unimportant and will have no effect on the elections.

What is the benchmark for knowing what one is talking about? How do we arrive at it and who decides it?
I'm all for greater politicisation of the electorate who are interested in voting (because of course there are plenty of forgo their right out of apathy or something else) and I think this would lead to more effective democracy but it would depend on how you've answered the questions above, which I believe to be inherently very difficult, if not unanswerable, when it comes to politics, without bringing in some aspect of arbitrary and undeserved power that is self-appointed.

Consider a culture where in education was free. The primary years focus on teaching all of the mechanics of arithmetic, writing, and what not. The secondary years focus on teaching critical thinking (we don't design the US system this way even though this is the best known way to do things). The post-secondary years (collegiate) are just as free as the first two stages of life. The Government, knowing full well the advantages of educated citizens in a post-Industrial knowledge society, funds their housing and minor living expenses to allow them to focus on school without the worry of a job; of course, one may still get a job it would simply not be a material requirement at this stage. Whether one ends up with a Doctorate or a High School diploma is not based upon birth or economic concerns merely their own desire to work for it.

If under this system we put a bench mark that all those with what would, in this society, be the equivalent of a Bachelors (or perhaps Masters) degree we would limit the voting population. Those who have a Bachelor degree may not be able to do certain things better than those without one, however, the accumulated information of this individual is unarguably higher. With this accumulated information they are more likely to be able to make better decisions by being in an environment that has taught them to be academic, to look away from things in emotional perspectives and look at the world through facts. The margin of error in this situation is much lower than allowing those with, and even without, a High School diploma to make decisions they are generally uninformed about.

The beauty of this system is two fold.

Wherein, the society creates a system of classes with the movement between classes fluid and easily achievable you will see a more egalitarian society. The United States is a class system even if it does not proscribe it in the Constitution. The Poor, the Middle Class, the Rich, and the Ultra-Rich are all very definitive in their differences and influences. Such differences and influences includes their political influence. Change between the classes is very difficult, we create a hereditary class system through one's birth being a major marker in determining their future class. Though the possibility of someone on moving between the classes exists, it is unlikely. In a system of class movement determined by a free and self-sustaining system everyone starts equal and can rise to the point at which they choose without any impediments.

Additionally, research has shown that those who earn something are more apt to take an interest in it. The freedoms of the Constitution are little cared for by the general person who prefers to place their freedoms on the mantle, occasionally polish it, and bring it out for festivities; the real freedoms of our Constitution are lost within a quagmire of the Idiocracy. By making political involvement a privilege instead of a right, you are able to have a voting populace that is less apathetic, a populace who will view their personal achievement with pride. Wherein, a population is prideful in their privilege of voting they are more likely to take their voting more seriously and keep up to date on what they have learned.

Indeed, if for no other reason the best result of this system is not the initial education requirement, but instead, the results of a prideful voting population. Is such a system free from corruption? Of course not. It is, however, a system designed to be stronger against corruption while maintaining that those who take the responsibility of others into their hands are respectful of that power.

Source?


Except there's one flaw: Not everyone is bright. It's all very well giving students a life of no worries so that they can focus on their studies, but the simple fact is that for many people, working hard at your studies simply isn't enough. There's also an innate spark of intelligence involved. Your system denies political power to the inherently less intelligent.
Also, it seems highly optimistic to think of the academic classes that, because they're clever, they'll avoid making poor or emotional decisions. Truman was the only US President in the 20th Century not to have a college degree; am I to assume that the rest never put a foot wrong?


You can't have a nation of academics, nor can you have a nation of mechanics. Why do the mechanics, who are doing a useful, if not more useful job than that of the academics, lose out on representation?


When it comes to bestowing power, you need to be easy on the carrot and hard on the stick, because power is such a dangerous thing. So far your system relies on the carrot by assuming that the educated classes will all just happen to be respectful of their power (not a historical trend, it must be said). What happens to them if they, as likely as not, turn out to disrespect that power?

I didn't, I don't and I will never care about politics.(I think)

Thankyou for your wonderful contribution.

Social liberal, fiscal conservative. I think the government should interfere with our personal lives or the economy as little as possible. However, I'm not an anarchist or a fan of unbridled capitalism, I just think that the ideal amount of government intervention is fairly low.

fairly moderate conservative. but i cant stand most radical republicans. like glenn beck.

I dont know the word in english to express my political beliefs...
Well ok , i dont like George Bush and Cristiano Ronaldo.
Wtf am i?
:rofl:

no need to get an answer..

I'm Liberal Democrat. But I'm English. I know quite a few of you on here are American. Not too sure how your political system works over there.

I'm a fascist.

WoW...

I love how you can have people like OP essentially saying they're a communist to no opposition, but when someone says the word fascist all of a sudden its OMGFASCIST!!!111!

GREEN PARTY.. Fuck the world !

Essentially, they have two parties: The Republicans and the Democrats.

The Democrats like government a little more than the Republicans, and the Republicans like international intervention a little more than the Democrats.

The UK Parliament is one of the most corrupt entities in the entire world, up there with the US Congress. 90% of members of Parliament are elected from rotten boroughs in which they receive more votes than voters.

dannym2326 wrote:

I'm a Social Democrat, not a Communist.

Fascism beats Communism.

A fascist can be a Communist. Fascism is basically "the ends justify the means", and the means can be whatever the fascist feels is necessary. Including Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc.