Democracy?

[johncmcleod]

Or, the candidates could write their own questions. Questions for both candidates would have to be answered, so they'd be fair.

Just exactly as I said it. They'd write questions about themselves. Example Howard Dean was the governor of Vermont, true or false. So and so is for the abolition of the death penalty, true or false. They wouldn't have to be true or false questions though, those are just examples.

I don't think we should dismiss the idea [of completely screwing up the entire nation] without giving it a chance...

[Fez mode]Skywalker, why are you so delusional? Maybe a swim in the shark-infested Pacific Ocean would do you good. Where is my chopper?[/Fez mode]

Seriously though, that idea has been tried for 226 years, so it hasn't been dismissed. Maybe giving the people more say might be better. The people would have direct control over the issues instead of politicians only being able to vote on them.

[Kuciwalker]

Just exactly as I said it. They'd write questions about themselves. Example Howard Dean was the governor of Vermont, true or false. So and so is for the abolition of the death penalty, true or false. They wouldn't have to be true or false questions though, those are just examples.

Oh, so you were talking about a Republic right then...

Seriously though, that idea has been tried for 226 years, so it hasn't been dismissed. Maybe giving the people more say might be better. The people would have direct control over the issues instead of politicians only being able to vote on them.

Maybe giving people more say would lead to complete chaos and malfunction in the government (and thus the nation). Most likely, in fact. And politicians are actually a pretty good measure of what the people want (they want to be reelected).

[blackice]

In Canada we call it dicatorial democracy... The right to vote and the right to be dictated to...

Anyone else see the trend?

So who's money is it anyway?
So who's rights are they promoting?
So is there a law in your land that stops them from harming you?
So is there a law in your land that stops them from oppressing you?
Is there a law in your land that stops them from taking your cash?

So bottom line do they care and do they abide by the laws or do they just change them to justify thier actions, dispite the will of the people.

Are you afraid of your government?
Do they have more power than you?
Do appointed by the government at the time judges making social decissions for the masses?
Ask questions be pro active, see the results.

[Kuciwalker]

The government does not have more power than you (the people), because you have complete power over the government. The government cannot maintain something against the will of the people for more than four years max, unless it declares martial law etc., in which case it's a moot point anyways.

[blackice]

Yes every four years, but while in power they have the power over you. Do not kid yourself and in fours years look at the carnage,,,, you had the power?

Dictatorial democracy do not kid yourself...

[Kuciwalker]

You want us to swap administrations MORE often?

Plus, they WANT to be reelected. That keeps them from doing something that people don't want.

[blackice]

Pick a side, if not mine, piss off, don't want to hear,
no compromise when it comes to man,
man's ****ing me up in here.
His ability to make it all dissapear,
how can I trust what I fear, be like the rest,
disconnect, stick my head in a beer,
that dizzy disease, disney indeed,
dangle the carrot, watch the ass feed.
Never questioning the hand that bleeds,
less brain than present day Cobain,
global destruction at the touch of a button
a world clearly insane,
genocide justified as killing in the name,
won't be satisfied till the peace keepers fly,
then it's boom, boom, boom, boom, goodbye.

Put up, or get up and get out,
ya gotta put up, or get up and get out
ya gotta put up, or get up and get out
ya gotta put up, put up, put up, put up, get out!

/Pollutiom
/Murder
/Carnage
/Give it up

You voted for that right?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
SECURE internet voting system? What will you come up with next, che?

Commies have a prolific imagination -- who knows, Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The day they come up with a 'secure' system is the day some hacker in Singapore swings the election for the Natural Law Party.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by skywalker
Plus, they WANT to be reelected. That keeps them from doing something that people don't want.

Nonsense this. Unpopular decisions have to be made.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Well, I don't want a republic. I want a democracy.

Why that's downright unAmerican!

[Elok]

I don't really want either, but our current system seems to be the best we could get. Failing that, I vote for the revival of the ancient Chinese Mandate of Heaven system, which is essentially a more honest and high-risk form of our present "democracy."
And I agree that controlling the flow of information on the internet is a slightly smaller problem than inventing time travel, or cold fusion. 'Taint gonna happen.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
"secure internet" = oxymoron

Couldn't be any less secure then your current methods.

[rah]

Re: Democracy?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
But what if for everything voted on (including candidates I guess) the voter had to pass a test on the issue? They'd have to answer just a few simple questions on the issue and each opposing side or the policies of the candidates and then their vote would count. Some people might say that it wouldn't be fair because they wouldn't know what to learn, but first off this would encourage people to look into things which is good, and second, the simple solution is to release a cheap pamphlet with some information on the issue (or candidate) and all the answers to the questions would be in there somewhere. And in the pamphlet sources would be given to places where people could find more information, and the reader would be very strongly encouraged to look into the issue more.

These types of test have been twisted and used in the past to deny the rights of minorities to vote. I don't think we want to go back down that road.

[Elok]

What if the minority we're trying to deny rights to is Stupid People?