[freddyujnf]

What's the old saying. "One man, one vote. I am the one man and I have the one vote."

[blohannaserri]

Being allowed to vote could depend on what you know about what is being voted about. Make a simple test about the vote and if you succeed you get the right to vote in that voting. Questions for such test could include what is the key issue of a certain politician, what is PoliticianX's stance on Universal Suffrage/Abortion/Gun control/Being allowed to kill your neighbor if he insultes you/etc... For anyone who has stayed just a little up to date with the situation, there should be no problems getting the majority of the questions right
This way those who doesn't have a clue on what is being voted about, will not be allowed to vote, but those who votes also knows what it is about. This way teenagers interested in politics could also vote

Any other limitations will have an negative effect on the outcome. If we only allow people with a property to vote, we'll see fewer votes on politicians who wants to help the poor people. If we only let the people vote who was in the military, then we'll see an increase in votes for a military leader... etc, etc, etc

Unfortunately a test like this would require a lot more resources


I'm not sure where I stand myself on this question on allowing everybody to vote. Until I saw that video of that crazy women who kept telling people not to vote for Obama, just because his middle name is Hussain (remember, we're at war with the middle east, we can't have a Hussain in the White House), I was against not allowing everybody to vote, but now I'm not so sure anymore... Too many crazy people out there

[Scukonahuy]

I never thought you were a technocrat, Riesstu.

[fabrizioitwloch]

Eugenics

[Opening-auto]

I rather agree with Adagio's suggestions than Onodera's. Universal Suffrage isn't always ideal, but giving people a test could be a solution.

Suppose a citizen makes a vote for politician X (on a computer), he will be given a list of say 10-20 questions about the stance and opinion of that politician X. Depending on how many questions the citizen answers correctly, his vote will weigh more or less in the total result.

So, people with little knowledge still get a vote, so they are in a way democratically represented, while those who make a well-considered vote have more representation.

I think this is better than giving a test and failing the citizen. Poor people with little education need to be represented as well. My system might stimulate them to learn more. If people are not represented at all, they will generate feelings of hate, and disinterest in politics. They won't feel involved. Need to give them a little incentive.

[lesso73]

[QUOTE=Traianvs;5505289]Suppose a citizen makes a vote for politician X (on a computer), he will be given a list of say 10-20 questions about the stance and opinion of that politician X. Depending on how many questions the citizen answers correctly, his vote will weigh more or less in the total result./QUOTE]
And who will determine what X's stance is? It's not like the politicians themselves fill in a form where they indicate whether they are pro-babykilling or pro-clinicbombing. Can you summarize the views of Mitt Romney, for example? It's better to test the people on the subjects being discussed, not the presumable opinions of the candidates.

[greekbeast]

[QUOTE=onodera;5505327]

Suppose a citizen makes a vote for politician X (on a computer), he will be given a list of say 10-20 questions about the stance and opinion of that politician X. Depending on how many questions the citizen answers correctly, his vote will weigh more or less in the total result./QUOTE]
And who will determine what X's stance is? It's not like the politicians themselves fill in a form where they indicate whether they are pro-babykilling or pro-clinicbombing. Can you summarize the views of Mitt Romney, for example? It's better to test the people on the subjects being discussed, not the presumable opinions of the candidates.

It's easy. The questionnaire can be about several basic convictions. What views he has on the state (separatist or not for example, pro-monarchy or not), the economy, etc. Also, what is his current occupation, what has he achieved in the past (has he done many interpellations in parliament and what about...). What are the issues the politician is concerned with most. Are his views 100% consistent with party views.

You can go pretty far with it and go to advanced topics. So a good mixture of simple questions and advanced questions would be good to see if the citizen is making an ill-informed vote or not.

With your suggestion, we would go back to the 19th century, when only the aristocracy was allowed to vote. Now only the rich and well educated would be allowed a vote. Poor people elect more intelligent people to represent them because they advocate their interests. Being smart doesn't equal making the best choice. All those financial bastards in the bank or stock market industry were smart boys, but they did screw it up big time. So in your system only the well to do would have power, and accordingly they would put it to their own advantage. Greed is universal, intelligence or money isn't an issue there.

The voters don't need to be intelligent, the politicians need to be. Everyone's opinion has its merits. The point is the vote needs to be well-informed and not a protest vote or a popularity vote. This is why questioning the knowledge of the voter on the person he is voting for would be better imo.

[h0ldem]

I don't think the Lumpen should vote, only people who have been through primary school and high school. But, then, I speak from a third world perspective, with real shanty town uneducated criminal people.

Id be interested to see what Aneeshm thinks.

[errolespopume]

Have you seen the Canadian parliament? It's a joke, frankly.

Monarchy isn't perfect, but it's still better then what we have now.

[BinasiDombrs]

In the US before Women's Suffrage husbands often got away with murder. A man had the right to discipline his wife and unfortunately sometimes a man just didn't know his strength. The death of a woman from domestic violence was often written off as an accident. After women got the right to vote the rate of female homicide increased dramatically and simultaneously the rate of accidental death of women decreased, simply because cases which would have been written off as accidents became classified as homicide.

The treatment of blacks and Asians before they got the effective right to vote was similar. When people have no political power their lives are literally worth less than those who do have power.

In England before universal male suffrage the upper classes successfully blocked attempts to increase literacy amongst the lower classes. The thing is though educating the masses makes a great deal of sense. The genes for intelligence and creativity aren't restricted to the property owning classes. Universal education increases the likelihood of developing the full potential of the whole society.

In your own country onodera employers literally held the power of life and death over their employees before the Tsar granted the Duma a measure of power. At the beginning of the 20th century employers still had the right to physically discipline their employees and sometimes employees died as the result of corporal punishment. So long as the means of punishment wasn't obviously intended to be lethal employers generally weren't punished if the servant died. The next time you screw up at work think about that, if you didn't have the right to vote your life would be at the mercy of your bosses.

[Tam04xa]

I'm rather fond of the monarchy... How terribly unsurprising.

Monarchy - at least Monarchy with any sort of real power - is a terrible form of government.

Representative Democracy has its issues, no doubt, but come on now. It's not even close.

As for the major underlying problem with Democracy (that is, the people suck), well, it's a human thing more than a system of government thing. You can do your best to mitigate it, but ultimately people will still suck.

Happy New Year

-Arrian

[TeveVikep]

You're probably on to something, Cort Haus. It's only natural that thoughts concerning governance, politics, economy, etc. would change when you start to perceive the failure of a system.

When I think of the US and our democratic system, I'm hard pressed to think of anything that is positive at all the past few years. I can think of innumerable bad aspects.

In my own lifetime I have seen a nation that has allowed our manufacturing industry to be dismantled, squandered away wealth and unprecedented levels, and fostered a house of cards economy. When I walk the streets or go to my job, I look at a nation that has become overweight, in debt, and overwhelmed with media a consumerism. I see a nation with an uncertain future.

[oliverlogo]

C'mon folks, learn to live with the least bad system of government in the world. I paraphrase Churchill when I say, democratic republics are the worst possible governments, except for all the rest. People are not nearly as stampedable as some onlookers think. Mobs don't come in the million+ member size and panics subside before representatives can react.

Personally, I like the checks and balances system developed during the US' early years (rest its soul). The one-party and blood succession feudal systems guarantee corruption and bad blood between the government and the citizens. Not that representative democracies don't have both of these, but on a much lower scale.

Note, any qualification system for limiting the vote will be used, in whatever nation, to limit the votes of those out of power and enable the votes of those that are in power. Forget that!

[Opening-auto]

The problem with allowing only landowners to vote or only letting the educated vote is that they will pass laws that favor landowners or the educated. The majority of people will have no one looking out for their interests. How can you ask the unrepresented majority of your country to serve in the military, to pay taxes, to follow laws which they've had no part in writing, etc?

In the mid-18th Century, the British Empire was ruled by the educated well-to-do. They ruled is such a way that we USAians kicked the butts out of our country.

I can understand if you were setting up a democracy in a country like Saudi Arabia, where you have a radicalize "street," you might not want to transform over to a pure republic. In this case, you could have a democratic lower house but an upper house which does have elitist restrictions (money and/or education).

[Caluabdum]

Eugenics

+1