Vote!

[DinoDoc]

Arrian: You're avoiding the question. If that's your intent, just say so.

Zkribbler: IMO, those who vote are likely going to be the ones who really care about what is going on in the first place. Thus, the push to boost student voting rates is useless and misdirected. The candidates should worry more about ensuring that their platforms are well advertised so that those who do care are able to make informed decisions at the poll rather than trying to drag people who don't care to the polling booth.

[Arrian]

That's rich, coming from you. You hardly ever take a position on anything.

I'm actually not really trying to avoid the question - I thought I'd answered it.

It shows that the public cares to participate.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

More voters most likely means more people paying attention. Sure, just because you vote doesn't mean you're politically aware, but I think there is a correlation. So more voters = more citizens taking an interest in what their government is doing. Which is a good thing, in my book.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If people are too stupid to have an opinion or get motivated to vote willingly, why should we be encouraging them to vote?

Because a democratic system is legitimate only if the public participates. If less than half the public consistently votes, then you don't really have a system in which the popular will rules and the legitimacy of the very system is questionable.

After all, why should anyone outside of power ever get a votes anyway? What the hell does motivation or opinions have to do with ruling?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I think Dino's point is as much involvement as possible is a good thing as long as those so involved are informed and care enough to get informed.

Otherwise its simply a mob mentality, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Informed voting

Voting cause MTV says its cool

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I think Dino's point is as much involvement as possible is a good thing as long as those so involved are informed and care enough to get informed.

Otherwise its simply a mob mentality, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Yet that is the point of democracy. That is what the very word means essentially.

Why have a democracy at all then, and not a technocracy or meritocracy/aristocracy?

[flash9286]

I'm not voting this election, because I really don't like either of the candidates and it is cold and raining outside.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Yet that is the point of democracy. That is what the very word means essentially.

Why have a democracy at all then, and not a technocracy or meritocracy/aristocracy?

Who said we were a democracy?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Who said we were a democracy?

We obviously are, otherwise we would not have the government we do today. No meritocracy or technocracy would have this Bush (elder Bush, different story) as president. As for aristocracy, well, we may have to change the definition of a "better person."

[Q Classic]

*sighs* I wish my vote actually mattered...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


We obviously are, otherwise we would not have the government we do today. No meritocracy or technocracy would have this Bush (elder Bush, different story) as president. As for aristocracy, well, we may have to change the definition of a "better person."

No! Were we a democracy in the truest sense of the word we would all have one vote on various issues.

We are instead an indirect democracy. Obviously the founders felt some people were better suited to the decision making process than the entire populace. Those elected representatives would be the ones the citizenry felt best suited to the decision making process hence the election of these same people.

Now if the founders held that some people were best suited at making those decisions, why is it a stretch to think some people are more well informed to decide who should be their representative?

[Arrian]

We don't always hold strictly to what the founders wanted/believed. If we did, we wouldn't vote for Senators directly, women wouldn't vote, etc.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Point still stands, we are anything but a direct democracy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No! Were we a democracy in the truest sense of the word we would all have one vote on various issues.

The truest sense of the word democracy would allow any resident of a place to vote at the time of election, without all the rules and regulations we have today. Don't try to make Democracy mean something else.

We are instead an indirect democracy. Obviously the founders felt some people were better suited to the decision making process than the entire populace. Those elected representatives would be the ones the citizenry felt best suited to the decision making process hence the election of these same people.

The term is Representative democracy, not "inderect" democracy. And what is being discussed here is the electing of said representatives, NOT whether the government should be made up of representatives as opposed to rule by referendum.

Now if the founders held that some people were best suited at making those decisions, why is it a stretch to think some people are more well informed to decide who should be their representative?

The founding fathers most certainly felt that in terms of the House of Representatives, everyone was qualified to chose who their representative would be. That is why they left the election to the general populace. They did feel that the public should not directly chose Senators, but since that time the powers of the voting public have been expanded to allow them to also directly chose their senatorial candidate.

The trend in America since 1789 has been to expand suffrage, and most laws in the past century have done so. The only set of laws in whcih suffrage has been curtailed apply to legal resident aliens, otherwise America has been moving towards greater democracy, not less.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


"inderect" democracy.

I have no idea what an "inderect" democracy is!

But Represenative democracy is more clearly what the US is, and it is a subset of Indirect Democracy

Indirect democracy
Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives.

The most common system found in today's democratic states is the representative democracy. The people elect government officials who then make decisions on their behalf. Essentially, a representative democracy is a form of indirect democracy in which representatives are democratically selected, and usually difficult to recall.

A doctrine often known as Edmund Burke's Principle states that representatives should act upon their own conscience in the affairs of a representative democracy. This is contrasted to the expectation that such representatives should consider the views of their electors—an expectation particularly common in states with strong constituency links, or with recall provisions (such as modern British Columbia).

Wiki

Direct democracy
Main article: Direct democracy
Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy[1], is any form of government based on a theory of civics in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process. Some adherents want legislative, judicial, and executive powers to be handled by the people, but most extant systems only allow legislative decisions.

Modern direct democracy, as it functions within representative democracy, is characterised by three pillars:

Initiative
Referendum including binding referenda
Recall
The second pillar can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. The third pillar gives the people the right to recall elected officials by petition and referendum.

Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government.

Another distinctive example comes from the United States, where, despite being a federal republic where no direct democracy exists at the federal level, over half the states (and many localities) provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures", "ballot questions" or "propositions") and the vast majority of the states have either initiatives and/or referenda.

With the advent of the Internet, there have been suggestions for e-democracy, which comprises various mechanisms for implementing direct democracy concepts.

Wiki (if you would beleive them) would actually argue the US a federal republic.

[GePap]

None of that has anything to do with Dino's basic question about getting people to poll sites.