US Voting Qualifications Thread

[SuburbanFarmer]

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 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.

Valid point. Looks like we're headed for an emperor then. Probably some pompous fool, that paints himself in gold, and gives the appearance of competence, backed by military force.

[apeman]

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. . . .

Dear god, I am not trying to pass a bill with you misfit toys, it is a thought exercise. We will never restrict voting rights.

Asking again, what is the best way to structure voting rights to align incentives?

[Speaker to Animals]

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 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.

Valid point. Looks like we're headed for an emperor then. Probably some pompous fool, that paints himself in gold, and gives the appearance of competence, backed by military force.

Or we could walk back this universal enfranchisement idea, I guess. But fuck it. If GCF doesn't get to vote, then we all can have Caesar.

[SuburbanFarmer]

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 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.

Valid point. Looks like we're headed for an emperor then. Probably some pompous fool, that paints himself in gold, and gives the appearance of competence, backed by military force.

Or we could walk back this universal enfranchisement idea, I guess. But fuck it. If GCF doesn't get to vote, then we all can have Caesar.

Pretty much, yeah. Your rights don't matter more than mine, so if you want to take mine away, then I take yours.

[SuburbanFarmer]

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. . . .

Dear god, I am not trying to pass a bill with you misfit toys, it is a thought exercise. We will never restrict voting rights.

Asking again, what is the best way to structure voting rights to align incentives?

And, as I mentioned, without full transparency, it's impossible. You can't expect anyone to vote sensibly on what happens behind a curtain.

[apeman]

You dont believe in incentives I guess

[SuburbanFarmer]

You dont believe in incentives I guess

You can incentivize anything, with sticks and carrots and no information - which is exactly what we have now.

Somebody sticks an arm out from behind the curtain and screams "HEALTHCARE!!!!! WE NEED HEALTHCARE!!!!" The theater crowd argues, forms positions, then awaits the next blurb of information, all the while never even seeing what's really happening. Just shapes and noises coming from behind the curtain. Then, when things go wrong, the theater crowd is of course blamed for the result.

[Ex-California]

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.

1497 years actually

[Ex-California]

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. . . .

Dear god, I am not trying to pass a bill with you misfit toys, it is a thought exercise. We will never restrict voting rights.

Asking again, what is the best way to structure voting rights to align incentives?

And, as I mentioned, without full transparency, it's impossible. You can't expect anyone to vote sensibly on what happens behind a curtain.

That's where we're at right now

[The Conservative]

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?

We are a FUCKING REPUBLIC! Not a Democracy... fucking hell... how stupid do you need to be to not realize this?