Who should get to vote?

Turn off all TV stations except for CSPAN for the month before the election.

We'd educate the electorate and solve obesity at one stroke.....

0 Replies

I am not happy with the voting citizens of the U.S but anyone capable of making a decision should be allowed to vote. When we started voting one had to be a landowner and I wouldn't want to go back to that time.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Pure democracy doesn't work. Our republic has gotten by OK so far.....

Who said it had to be pure or direct?

0 Replies

I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote.

Why the assumption that democracy is the best way to do things?

0 Replies

What do you prefer?

0 Replies

I am immensely pleased the Democracy in Afaganisthan and Iraq.
I will be highly elated if some of th citizens( who are alowed/approved) of USA to make use of their rights..
So far as i know USA's election is super commercial and there were never a RESIDENT OF WHITE HOUSE who got the approval of more than 49 percent of the Americans..
I stand for correction if I were wrong.
Rama

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

I am immensely pleased the Democracy in Afaganisthan and Iraq.
I will be highly elated if some of th citizens( who are alowed/approved) of USA to make use of their rights..
So far as i know USA's election is super commercial and there were never a RESIDENT OF WHITE HOUSE who got the approval of more than 49 percent of the Americans..
I stand for correction if I were wrong.
Rama

Your wrong.
Reagan was elected with over 50% of the popular vote.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Well, there is this whole concept of democracy and self-rule. I happen to like it.

But why?

Philosophical reasons? Pragmatic reasons? What?

0 Replies

Your wrong.
Reagan was elected with over 50% of the popular vote.
No sir i am not wrong.

Kindly correct me with valid american source.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

What do you prefer?

A Meritocracy.

I have been on several software products that were run as meritocracies (which basically is a form of Oligarchy). There is one person, or a small group of people who get to decide which of the members deserve more power.

The truly deserving (as determined by the people in the ruling group) are eventually invited to become part of the ruling group.

This perpetuates the good in the organization and rewards those who contribute.

This would be great if we could institute it nationally.

0 Replies

Pretty simple question really, only white male property owners should have the right to vote.
the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. the qualifications for voters are left to the states.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
What do you prefer?

A Meritocracy.

I have been on several software products that were run as meritocracies (which basically is a form of Oligarchy). There is one person, or a small group of people who get to decide which of the members deserve more power.

The truly deserving (as determined by the people in the ruling group) are eventually invited to become part of the ruling group.

This perpetuates the good in the organization and rewards those who contribute.

This would be great if we could institute it nationally.

That's a fine system as long as you are willing to accept the fact that "the truely deserving" chosen by the select few may have beliefs that directly contradict everything you believe in and that "perpetuating the good" could easily mean "killing anyone that disagrees".

0 Replies

Vote according to your political views.

But please vote and uphold decency and democracy
- the products that USA is exporting around the globe.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Well, there is this whole concept of democracy and self-rule. I happen to like it.

But why?

Philosophical reasons? Pragmatic reasons? What?

Philosophical reasons mostly. I strongly believe that every individual should have a say in who their leaders are and that every person should be represented. I realize that all things are not equal and that mob rule is a risk, but I think our system does a pretty good job of providing ways to mitigate that risk. As soon as you start trying to separate worthy voters from unworthy voters then you creep towards having a ruling class -- people who get to decide for others what's best for them and who also, btw, get to determine who is worthy. Surprisingly, those other worthy voters will probably be people like themselves. It's ripe for abuse.

0 Replies

"Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote,"

Your are very correct sir
Ask any old people who had studied in yale uni.
I had the opportunity to talk with legal intellectuals.

0 Replies

Only those that choose not to vole, shouldn't vote.

Rap

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
What do you prefer?

A Meritocracy.

I have been on several software products that were run as meritocracies (which basically is a form of Oligarchy). There is one person, or a small group of people who get to decide which of the members deserve more power.

The truly deserving (as determined by the people in the ruling group) are eventually invited to become part of the ruling group.

This perpetuates the good in the organization and rewards those who contribute.

This would be great if we could institute it nationally.

That's a fine system as long as you are willing to accept the fact that "the truely deserving" chosen by the select few may have beliefs that directly contradict everything you believe in and that "perpetuating the good" could easily mean "killing anyone that disagrees".

The question was "what do I prefer?".

In the system I prefer... you should assume that the people in charge would largely share my beliefs (and only kill people who are truly threats to civilized society.)

There is a reason that this system is called "Meritocracy".

0 Replies

my strong opinion is this.
Voters are misled/ill informed.
American way of life is nonsense pure.