Democracy is the worst form of government...

[stevevw]

One more time...just because you don't accept evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not going to ask for any examples because you head off topic at the drop of hat and I'm not really interested.

So how do you know that the evidence that people 'don't accept' is actually evidence. The government use to say that smoking was ok. They obviously provided some evidence to back their position. Similar to climate change where both sides were producing evidence. My point is that the State can manipulate the evidence. Its not hard to do nowadays. We only have to look at the recent events with the Corona Virus.

 

[Whyayeman]

To allow the guilty to judge themselves innocent is a ridiculous proposition.

It is. Juries do that.

I am only advocating for convicts to be allowed to vote in elections.

 

[Bradskii]

Wrong.

Then you'd be happy with the result of a referendum if it was held today. That's good to hear.

 

[o_mlly]

I thought it was clear. Is the system we have at the moment the best one possible? If not, and you see one or more problems, then tell us what you think they are and how you think they can be solved

The OP question is: Is the system we have at the moment the best one possible? Not clear.

Your welcomed amendment is: If not, and you see one or more problems, then tell us what you think they are and how you think they can be solved. Is Clear.

Anyone seriously involved in solving problems knows that the process to be successful always begins with a precise definition of the problem under examination.

 

[Bradskii]

Isn't democracy about different sides (political positions) within a society trying to get their ideas into power.

It's about who gets to vote. Not who who they get to vote for.

 

[Bradskii]

Meandering is like walking around blindly. Unless a post begins with the headline "blind squirrel finds nut", there's not much to cheer about. So, as we're approaching 750 posts in this thread, let's ask the OP to sum it up. What possible improvements to our systems of governance has this thread disclosed?

Personally speaking...a better educated electorate seems to be the best suggestion. And less of a reliance on referendums. Which aren't that frequent anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems what is regarded as evidence today is something different to how we use to understand evidence.

As long as it's not religiously based then we can argue about the validity of the evidence for any given subject when it arises. Which isn't relevant for this discussion. I keep saying that and you keep ignoring it. So I won't bother responding on this matter any further. You can waste your time but you aren't going to waste mine.

 

[o_mlly]

Personally speaking...a better educated electorate seems to be the best suggestion.

How would you propose to implement? Restrict voting to only those who have advanced degrees?

 

[Bradskii]

How would you propose to implement?

Compulsory civics and critical thinking classes in secondary schools (aka high schools).

 

[o_mlly]

Compulsory civics and critical thinking classes in secondary schools (aka high schools).

Would voters be required to produce a certified record of passing those courses?

 

[Bradskii]

Would voters be required to produce a certified record of passing those courses?

A tattooed barcode on the wrist might be worth considering.

 

[o_mlly]

Would voters be required to produce a certified record of passing those courses?

So, assuming the sarcasm started with this post, so much for never restricting one's legal right to vote and most certainly the idea of universal suffrage. Thank you.

 

[Bradskii]

So, assuming the sarcasm started with this post, so much for never restricting one's legal right to vote and most certainly the idea of universal suffrage. Thank you.

Has someone, apart from you, suggested restricting the right?

 

[Whyayeman]

Would voters be required to produce a certified record of passing those courses?

I think you know that was not my intention when I raised the point about a better educated electorate.

I am for universal suffrage. There are two qualifications; majority (16 or 18 years in many countries) and nationality or permanent residency.

 

[o_mlly]

Has someone, apart from you, suggested restricting the right?

Apart from the present restrictions on voting? Yes, that would be you.

"How would you propose to implement? Restrict voting to only those who have advanced degrees?"
"Compulsory civics and critical thinking classes in secondary schools (aka high schools)."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Apart from the present restrictions on voting? Yes, that would be you.

"How would you propose to implement? Restrict voting to only those who have advanced degrees?"
"Compulsory civics and critical thinking classes in secondary schools (aka high schools)."

Re-read the posts. @Bradskii wasn't suggesting that a compulsory civics class should be a requirement to vote, it was a suggestion on how to improve how well informed the voters are by having compulsory civics classes in HS (presumably to graduate) as opposed to your "restrict to advanced degrees" quip.

 

[Pommer]

Isn't democracy about different sides (political positions) within a society trying to get their ideas into power. You know lobbying, promoting policies to attract voters hopefully jagging a few from the opposition (other side) to win the election. Or how smaller groups try to compete for recognition to promote their ideas.

Its like a couple of big parties and many smaller ones and independents all competing to win people, hopefully the majority to win. Allowing all sides to voice their ideas and policies and then voting for the best party and candidates. Isn't that how democracy works more or less. Different sides of the political spectrum competing with each other to get elected.

Yes, it’s the “marketplace of ideas”, we go with “what works” given on what we (as a society) have determined what “values” to enshrine in law.

As society changes the needs of that society will change and we will need to amend both the “values” and the laws that reflect those values, there’ll be “mistakes” and pushback and we will lurch forward, backward and to the left or right.

You know, “normal”.

 

[o_mlly]

Re-read the posts. @Bradskii wasn't suggesting that a compulsory civics class should be a requirement to vote, it was a suggestion on how to improve how well informed the voters are by having compulsory civics classes in HS (presumably to graduate) as opposed to your "restrict to advanced degrees" quip.

Are you Bradski's official interpreter? If posters don't write in sentences (gives them wiggle room) then what they post is subject to interpretation. My interpretation is just as good as yours. I anticipate another attempt at dodgeball.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you Bradski's official interpreter? If posters don't write in sentences (gives them wiggle room) then what they post is subject to interpretation. My interpretation is just as good as yours. I anticipate another attempt at dodgeball.

Just trying to help you with your reading of the text. It wasn't that hard, but you still managed to squeeze in an alternative meaning. Face it you are the only one trying to work up novel ways to suppress voting rights.

 

[o_mlly]

Just trying to help you with your reading of the text. It wasn't that hard...

Are you trying to be snarky?

Try helping yourself first. You've made the same grammatical error as your hero. I won't even mention your punctuation problems.

Now do you have any new thoughts you'd like to post on the topic?