Right, but implicit in the “one vote” idea is the principle that the value of each vote is the same. Under the electoral college, that isn’t true.
True, but it’s the most important election in many ways.
I take your point, but if you look at the Presidential election as the states choosing the President, which it is, then each vote is of equal value - just within the state, instead of within the nation. Make sense?
And in many ways it isn’t. I don’t like the Electoral College, but I also don’t believe that the presidency alone defines the American system.
I didn’t say you couldn’t watch it, only that you couldn’t cast votes on it AND cast a vote for a political candidate. Which, given that the reality television voting system is even more rigged than the electoral one, is probably a good incentive to stop people from doing it anyway.
We have had systems in the past that approximated what the OP suggests.
The point isn’t to have competent voters, it is to have competent government officials.
The Imperial exam was an effort to restrict government to the most competent Imperial examination - Wikipedia Its efficacy waned and ebbed with the level of corruption in society. It worked for several east asian nations for a long time and you can see vestiges of it in civil service exams around the world.
The tale of Gondor is interesting. Give some people EXTRA votes. I suppose you could give an extra vote to veterans but I don’t see any other criteria you could use to confer extra votes that wouldn’t end up having some discriminatory effect (or do you think that the distribution of higher degrees, higher incomes and IQ is not going to result in some major skews).
So if you wanted to skew the franchise toward the better educated Isuppose a veterans preference would increase the voting power of those who have at least a high school degree but increasing the voting power of the wealthy seems a bit redundant.
I also agree that we do not have one person one vote considering that the votes for house members were slightly in favor of the Democrats and yet the Republicans still hold the house 242 to 193.
I don’t know how to improve our democracy but things like citizens united and voter ID laws are not improving a system.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. :rolleyes:
The point is that it wasn’t “the mob” that brought us Vietnam, the Iraq War, and the Great Recession, but was instead “the best and the brightest.”
I’m sorry if the facts don’t conform to your view that the problem with America is that the ignorant sheep don’t do what you think they should.
We’re only really better off with being ruled by the smartest and the brightest if we also have greater trust in their motivations. If we could guarantee that a small collection of the smartest people, who were all absolutely and undeniably properly motivated, they would be the best form of government, always applying their intelligence to the best good or the least bad solution. The thing is, I don’t think those people, certainly not enough of them, actually exist, at least not in such a way that they would have sufficient popular support.
Really, the idea that certain people are less deserving of representation is exactly what has gotten us into trouble in the past for other reasons, and intelligence doesn’t necessarily qualify one for squat. I’m sure we all know someone who is probably absolutely brilliant in terms of booksmarts, but is terrible at judging character and has friends that abuse them or whatever. That person could easily know all the issues, but then quickly fall for a politician who an average person might just know is lying through his teeth.
We are who we are and we deserve to get represented as such. If someone thinks the wrong thing is happening, the answer isn’t to take away the vote from some people, but to, first, look and be assured of our own positions, then take the effort to convince people. If we don’t, it’s like losing a debate, not because they had a strong position or evidence, but because they just decide you’re wrong and declare victory.
Really, as others have pointed out, it seems to me the bigger issue isn’t the electorate, it’s the elected. So many of the worst things that have happened weren’t things that people were expecting when they voted. To use Iraq as an example, no one voted for that administration and that congress hoping to go to war with Iraq, the motivations were politicians seeking money and power. This is the case with almost all of the terrible things. Even those who voted against them weren’t expecting that sort of thing either, so it’s not like they were smart and knew we’d have 9/11 and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all that.
Frankly, I’d rather have dimwitted but well intentioned and honest people than intelligence but selfish and dishonest people.
Hey, I have an idea. Let’s create a system where decisions affect people locally rather than globally. First, let’s limit the powers of the federal government to include only things that affect national security, constitutional rights, and commerce between states. We can start by reducing how often Congress meets. Maybe they could assemble only once per year to tinker with only the above federal powers. This way they wouldn’t be full time politicians, would have to make a living outside of politics in the real world, and wouldn’t have time to tinker in every aspect of our lives.
Next, whatever the federal government cannot do will be the purview of the different state governments. This way, the detailed tinkering with every aspect of our lives will be different in different cities and states. This would create a system where different states could experiment with different solutions to universal problems and other states could learn from the success or failure of these plans. You see, fewer idiots would be able to influence the daily lives of huge amounts of people and other idiots would then have the ability to look around at all the potential solutions and see which ones work well. Other idiots that don’t like the proposed solutions can choose to move to a different state with their preferred solution and live with the consequences.
In the above scenario I favor one man one vote.
Some of us feel that idiocy is not a government exclusive. There are plenty of idiots outside of government and they can do just as much damage as government idiots. So if the problem is idiocy, you should do something about idiocy not do something about government. Smart government is in fact one of the things you can do about general idiocy.
That’s absolutely incorrect. You cannot have smart government with general idiocy in a one-man, one-vote system. Idiots will vote for idiotic people and things…it’s their nature. The beauty of my system is dilution of the effect of idiots on the collective. Idiots voting locally will result in local idiotic solutions. Others will be able see the effects of these idiotic ideas and compare possible solutions.
I agree with what Little Nemo said upthread. Use the Heinlein system. One differance I would add is that you have to fulfill some quota of service each year to maintain the right to vote. Also, only those with the right to vote are legally allowed to contribute money to election campaigns.
I think the two parties are playing “Good-cop, Bad-cop” with us, but I agree with just the bolded part of your OP
I also agree with the Heinlein approach, serve and get a vote. Not that it’ll do you much good if you voted for Gore in 2000.
There are few systems as self-serving, elitist, and tyrannical than the Heinlein system.
Well put. Nuts to the Heinlein model; we don’t serve the government, they serve us. We’re even paying for the whole enterprise.
I don’t see the problem … they’re just re-defining the word “citizen”. If we can re-define “infringed” and “arms”, why not citizen?
You’d think those who are alright with only allowing cops and soldiers to enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment would be OK with self-serving and elitist.
I’m sorry, would you care to rephrase that argument without the strawmen, imputation, innuendo, and logical fallacies?
The word citizen is re-defined to mean “having served your country.”
Also, I left out “militia”, that has been conveniently re-defined, also.
Definitions:
Infringed … act so as to limit or undermine something.
Arms … small arms such as a soldier of the 18th century would carry, that is pistols, rifles, bayonets, tomahawks, knives, and related melee arms. That is not to say, only flintlocks or similar. Anyone who allows freedom of the press to include laser printers and computers, and not just Gutenberg-type presses, similarly understands that small arms will also evolve.
Militia … the able bodied civilians who can be called up for service by the free State.
Bonus definition:
Well regulated … well equipped and prepared.
How would people know which country to serve, if the one they were born in did not count them as citizens with rights?
In case you haven’t read the entire thread, I’m making a point by employing verbal irony. I don’t want our system altered to only allow people in the service or veterans to have a vote … I was making the point that plenty of people, some who post hereabouts, are willing to re-define several terms, simply for their convenience, in my example, regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Additionally, according to Acsenray, a system which only allows those who’ve served to vote is self-serving, elitist, and tyrannical. He is not rushing to agree with me, however, that those who actively and systematically participate in actions that tend to limit other rights, like the 2nd Amendment, to certain groups, like the military and police, are similarly engaging in self-serving, elitist and tyrannical behavior.
I know this thread is about voting … I don’t want to change the subject, I merely want to draw a parallel between an idea that had been forwarded in post 45 by Little Nemo, and summarily dismissed by some posters, and similar suggestions regarding a Constitutional Right, that only certain people enjoy the protection of that right. It’s an analogy.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
I take your point, but if you look at the Presidential election as the states choosing the President, which it is, then each vote is of equal value - just within the state, instead of within the nation. Make sense?
[/QUOTE]
I understand why we have an electoral college, but that doesn’t make it more democratic. It’s just an accident of history. Why the hell should a state pick my chief executive? Why can’t I do it myself?
Let me ask you this: have you ever been to an HOA meeting? Libertarian types always like the idea of localizing government, and it is a nice one in theory - but anyone with even the tiniest experience of local government will tell you it’s a horrible idea.