They were officially abolished in 1930 with the passage of the Local Government Act, but they were carried on unofficially by local governments until the late 40s, with the passage of the National Health Service and National Assistance Acts.
Which would you rather be in?
Sound like a great way in the long run to inspire people to choose another system; one bullet, one vote. When most of the population - including almost all of the military - is composed of people who know that they effectively have no say in the country, that’s not good for stability and loyalty.
In other words, you want the real parasites to run everything even more than they do now. You want to give more power to the most ruthless, predatory people our society produces who aren’t actually in prison; people who have demonstrated that at best they are no more competent than anyone else and who show no concern for or loyalty to the country, people who would cheerfully see the country destroyed for a few percentage points of profit.
It’s common sense, surely. If someone possesses good judgement, it will help them choose competent senators and help them not fuck up in everyday life. While it’s possible to fail through bad luck, it’s a lot easier to fail if you also have bad judgement.
Judgement doesn’t matter nearly as much as how much money your parents and grandparents had. All the good judgement in the world won’t let you climb out of poverty. By the same token; the wealthy tend to stay wealthy even if they are drunken fools; good judgement matters little. Luck is far more important than judgement, especially your luck in having the right parents.
We already are a regulated welfare state.
What the poor would actually vote for given the freedom and Palinesque representatives of their purpose, who can say. I’d venture to guess that it would be very pro-union, attempts to tax the wealthy and business for everything, full coverage of all medical bills no matter how expensive, lots of vacation time, and otherwise try to turn the US into something akin to General Motors.
I don’t expect that to turn out to be any greater an event to the nation than it was to GM.
The so called doctrine of the deserving and undeserving poor.
Different but no necessarily superior. The Athenians considered the election-by-lot system, which is more representative of the people, the better system. Worth a try, says I. Ramsay MacDonald suggested replacing the House of Lords with a system of representatives of different professions, unions and so forth. Like the original Soviets.
[quote=“Tim_R.Mortiss, post:14, topic:528060”]
I agree. That is why I advocate that we eliminate the concept of “one man, one vote,” and replace it with “one dollar, one vote.”[/qote]
Of course the whole idea of democracy is to allow the mass to offset the money power of the rich with the numbers of their votes. If you take away the equal entitlement to votes you may as well take away voting all together.
I don’t suppose you’ve read a book called The Vote, how it was won and how it was undermined, by the journalist Paul Foot, but it begins with a retelling of the debate between the Leveller Colonel Rainsworth, in favour of one man one vote, and the landed interest represented by General Ireton, after the Parliamentary victory in the English Civil War.
Ireton argues that there’s nothing to stop the common man leaving the country, so the say in it’s running should be held only by those who own land and therefore have a stake in society. However the truth is that capital is movable, someone in poverty is far more tied to his land than someone more interested in the accumulation of borderless capital.
Your argument also rest on the assumption that capitalists generate more wealth moving money about and fiddling with balance sheets than people who actually grow food, manufacture consumer goods and so forth. A more reasonable point of view would recognise that those who take more than their equal share while doing less productive work are the parasites, rather like the toxoplasmosis parasite which changes the brain of a rat so that the rat is attracted to the smell of car urine and therefore gets eaten, allowing the parasite access to its breeding place in the cat’s intestinal lining.
The rich are rich because they hold fiat money, entirely reliant on the government of the people for its value, and property which only has value so long as your ownership of it is recognised by the government. Wealth relies on laws adopted with the consent of the masses and enforced by police and armed forces drawn from the masses.
The reason we have the system we do is that our ruling classes have a much better developed sense of self preservation than that of, say, Tsarist Russia. Therefore they are unlikely to adopt your plan, which would cause needless strife and aggravation.
Works for the French.
I’m trying to imagine the logistics of the election campaigns. There is no way a candidate could tailor a campaign to appeal to everyone in the lowest 2% of earnings. I’m guessing that they would concentrate on the large urban areas. So New York and LA would be target markets, and the rest of the poor would be largely ignored.
Interesting editorial. It’s clear that the Senate isn’t representing the citizens (on the whole) as well as it could be, but you’ll never see them apportioned by income level of constituents.
I could possibly see a system where there were a certain number of “at large” Senators, though I’m not sure how they would be apportioned/voted for. Maybe there could be a number of “small state” at-large Senators, or IOW, pool a bunch of the small states allotment of Senators to have a fairer Senator-to-constituent ratio across the board. Perhaps regional groups of 3 or 4 small states could share some at-large Senators so that instead of 4 small states in one region having 8 senators, they would have maybe 2 or 3 instead.
Of course, the small states would be doing cartwheels to get this enacted, I’m sure. :rolleyes:. And I can’t say I’d blame them for fighting it tooth-and-nail.
We’d fight it alright. And we haven’t been reduced to teeth and nails yet. 
Ignored in the campaign ads, perhaps; but any actual policy crafted to benefit the urban poor almost certainly will benefit the rural poor no less. (A great deal of contemporary RW propaganda is designed to obscure that fact; which obfuscation is made all the easier by the racial and cultural differences between the poor of the inner city and the poor of the countryside and hinterlands.)
Actually, that sounds more like corporatism (a political-science term which has nothing to do with business corporations). Mussolini was big on corporatism, but fascism hold no copyright on the idea. (The original, pre-Revolution Russian [url=]soviets were different – they were self-organized workers’ councils, independent of management, the state, and of any political party (before the Bolsheviks reduced them to instruments of rule, that is). A soviet was as if a labor union local, instead of demanding concessions from management, demanded to be management, and tried to act as if it were, and sometimes successfully made it stick.)
You consider the insider politics of the Beijing elite the power of the wise? This is a group that manipulated soldiers into slaughtering peaceful protestors that wanted more transparency & power-sharing. When the soldiers from around Beijing wouldn’t do it, they brought in soldiers from another province who spoke with a different accent & tried to propagandize them so the protestors wouldn’t sway them too.
I agree with some of China’s environmental policies, & I respect that they’re a more civilized & humane country than is commonly supposed in the West, but “the wise”?
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
But he lacks depth of vision.
Nitpick: Depth perception - Wikipedia
I don’t know about the US government, but I’ve always thought that the UN ought to have 2 houses - a “Senate” that would have proportional representation according to GDP, and a “House” that would be proportionally representative by population. We’d have similar strictures in place as in the US Constitution, so that it’s not “bread and circuses” across the board.
I’d think this concept would much more accurately represent the state of the world as opposed to the current one nation-one vote w/ Security Council clusterfuck we have now.
It’s absolutely asinine that Uruguay has the same UN voting power as say… Brazil or India, when Uruguay has less population and GDP than the CITY I live in, much less the state or nation.
Agreed that the Security Council is supremely undemocratic, but why should GDP factor into it at all? Why shouldn’t it just be democratic (i.e., representation proportional to population)?
Let’s review:
You said that poor people are less intelligent and less likely to compromise. I called bullshit on that. I then pointed that Republicans, being the party whose policies benefit the wealthy elite, are currently demonstrating remarkable truculence and obstinacy in the face of Democratic attempts at passing legislation (which have generally been of a centrist nature).
I do agree that it would favor the left overall. I don’t see how that would detrimental for the country as a whole (quite the contrary, in fact), but that’s beside the point here.
Just wanted to note that representation by income and social group is already practiced in the lower House. Google for Congressional gerrymandering.