US Voting Qualifications Thread

[apeman]

Respect? Why should I respect something that would take my rights away?

You are too emotional and too concerned with your own position to discuss what might be beneficial to the future of our country.

I of course understand why you don't like my proposals, but when you can only see one side like you do, you assume that my intentions are nefarious

[SuburbanFarmer]

Respect? Why should I respect something that would take my rights away?

You are too emotional and too concerned with your own position to discuss what might be beneficial to the future of our country.

I of course understand why you don't like my proposals, but when you can only see one side like you do, you assume that my intentions are nefarious

Are we not supposed to vote in our self interest, in a democracy?

[Speaker to Animals]

Respect? Why should I respect something that would take my rights away?

You are too emotional and too concerned with your own position to discuss what might be beneficial to the future of our country.

I of course understand why you don't like my proposals, but when you can only see one side like you do, you assume that my intentions are nefarious

Are we not supposed to vote in our self interest, in a democracy?

What happens when your self-interest is destructive to the democracy?

[SuburbanFarmer]

You are too emotional and too concerned with your own position to discuss what might be beneficial to the future of our country.

I of course understand why you don't like my proposals, but when you can only see one side like you do, you assume that my intentions are nefarious

Are we not supposed to vote in our self interest, in a democracy?

What happens when your self-interest is destructive to the democracy?

Then we're right back to the inherent flaw in Democracy, aren't we. The invisible hand fails.

Won't you please correct my decision for me, with some sort of overriding authority that 'knows what's best' for me?

[Speaker to Animals]

Are we not supposed to vote in our self interest, in a democracy?

What happens when your self-interest is destructive to the democracy?

Then we're right back to the inherent flaw in Democracy, aren't we. The invisible hand fails.

The entire point of this discussion was the inherent flaws in democracy and the fact that there exists no "invisible hand" to keep it from flying off the rails. Further. the more universal the franchise, the faster -- historically -- democracies flew off the rails.

Our culture lionizes the idea that everybody should get a vote like it's some self-evident truth, but it's not. Where in history did it make any sense to extend the vote to everybody? How did that work out for Athens and Rome?

[SuburbanFarmer]

What happens when your self-interest is destructive to the democracy?

Then we're right back to the inherent flaw in Democracy, aren't we. The invisible hand fails.

The entire point of this discussion was the inherent flaws in democracy and the fact that there exists no "invisible hand" to keep it from flying off the rails. Further. the more universal the franchise, the faster -- historically -- democracies flew off the rails.

Our culture lionizes the idea that everybody should get a vote like it's some self-evident truth, but it's not. Where in history did it make any sense to extend the vote to everybody? How did that work out for Athens and Rome?

You're referring to empires that lasted millenia. We've been here 200 years.

[apeman]

Respect? Why should I respect something that would take my rights away?

You are too emotional and too concerned with your own position to discuss what might be beneficial to the future of our country.

I of course understand why you don't like my proposals, but when you can only see one side like you do, you assume that my intentions are nefarious

Are we not supposed to vote in our self interest, in a democracy?

This is a thought exercise, not a vote.

No one is going to implement apeman's reforms as posted on the MHF.

Remove yourself from the exercise -- what is the best way to structure voting rights to align incentives?

[apeman]

The entire point of this discussion was the inherent flaws in democracy and the fact that there exists no "invisible hand" to keep it from flying off the rails.

Someone gets it

[SuburbanFarmer]

You are too emotional and too concerned with your own position to discuss what might be beneficial to the future of our country.

I of course understand why you don't like my proposals, but when you can only see one side like you do, you assume that my intentions are nefarious

Are we not supposed to vote in our self interest, in a democracy?

This is a thought exercise, not a vote.

No one is going to implement apeman's reforms as posted on the MHF.

Remove yourself from the exercise -- what is the best way to structure voting rights to align incentives?

Of course, but in the hypothetical that this board is running the government, Apeman's Awesome Reform Bill meets opposition from disenfranchised Penner voting bloc. Your response is that 'this is best'. GCF voting bloc says 'we say what's best in a Democracy'. Congress of Apeman must disregard the opinion of the citizens, or relent.

To answer your question, my ideal government would be a fully informed citizenry, voting on all domestic issues by referendum. Executive branch can handle foreign policy, as it was created to do, and Congress can burn.

[Speaker to Animals]

Then we're right back to the inherent flaw in Democracy, aren't we. The invisible hand fails.

The entire point of this discussion was the inherent flaws in democracy and the fact that there exists no "invisible hand" to keep it from flying off the rails. Further. the more universal the franchise, the faster -- historically -- democracies flew off the rails.

Our culture lionizes the idea that everybody should get a vote like it's some self-evident truth, but it's not. Where in history did it make any sense to extend the vote to everybody? How did that work out for Athens and Rome?

You're referring to empires that lasted millenia. We've been here 200 years.

The Roman Republic really lasted only about three centuries after they started expanding across the peninsula and beyond. For about two centuries prior to that, they were basically just a city with a few client towns in the surrounding area. The United States began at the stage that the Roman Republic was in about two centuries into it's history. It does seem like they will have squeezed about a century of life more out of their imperial-staged republic than we will, but that's not a thousand years.

What lasted a thousand years was an empire, run by an emperor, in which people were given votes on smaller matters that affected them locally, but not the whole empire. What really gave it additional life were the Diocletian reforms that established the groundwork for feudalism and were based on principles like subsidiarity.