- Dec 3, 2006
- 8,945
- 6,302
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why Christians can’t afford to sit out the 2024 election
- Thread starter Michie
- Start date
trophy33
Well-Known Member
- Nov 18, 2018
- 13,831
- 5,697
- Country
- Czech Republic
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Choosing from two options prepared and selected by others is not exactly to have a voice, anyway. After the election, they can do whatever they want for next few years without caring about any specific promises or program, changing it at will. We would have a voice in a system similar to Switzerland - public voting about specific issues.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,682
- 3,596
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You know the presidential election isn't the only race out there, right? IMO it's the least important item on most ballots, because local politics tend to have a much larger impact on a person's daily life than decisions being made on the national scale. And you don't have to choose one of those two options, people are just convinced those are their only options because they've been conditioned to ignore all of the other candidates on the ticket. You can even write in your own name in some places, if you want.
Upvote
0
trophy33
Well-Known Member
- Nov 18, 2018
- 13,831
- 5,697
- Country
- Czech Republic
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Sure, there are also local elections or you can vote for a candidate who has no real chance to win. Or not vote at all.
But the core of my argument is that voting for a person and then just hoping that he/she will do exactly what you want is not too good, compared to direct democracy. And it may lead to idolizing, bias and fanaticism about specific candidates (you must literally believe in them to vote for them).
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,682
- 3,596
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
If people didn't condition themselves into believing that they had to choose between two bad options, they wouldn't be stuck with those two bad options.
Direct democracy is far worse than republics, because the amount of decisions government needs to make would require such a high investment on the part of voters to research the issues that it is simply unworkable on any kind of scale. Republics aren't about the candidates doing exactly what the voters want, but representatives being dedicated to make informed policy decisions at least somewhat in their interests. Direct democracy is destroying California, because voters are constantly voting themselves into more and more debt through approving bond measures and opposing tax measures. Even the handful of ballot measures that make it onto the ballot in California are too much of an investment for most voters to truly become informed, if we made the daily operation of government based on such an approach the whole thing would implode in very short order.
Upvote
0
trophy33
Well-Known Member
- Nov 18, 2018
- 13,831
- 5,697
- Country
- Czech Republic
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Which can be mitigated with small government and without overcomplicated legal system, less regulations etc. Of course, the voting does not have to be about every administrative thing, rather about important issues influencing the daily life or economy.
Anyway, I am not saying whether direct or indirect democracy is better for a country as such, I am just saying that voting for a party or for a person is not as much having voice, compared to voting for specific issues. Its rather giving trust than giving voice.
And that the voting for a person or for a party can lead to fanaticism (which we can witness in the USA) - "my candidate is perfect, yours is the worst evil".
Upvote
0
- Apr 19, 2012
- 33,068
- 6,486
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
yes, but that (voting) is how we ensure that our vioces are heard to try to get such things passed. also, no I do not believe that Christians should want a theocracy as that has failed EVERY time it has been tried in this fallen world.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,682
- 3,596
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
A government that is capable of governing 400 million people is going to have a lot of issues to sort out. And if the voting isn't about every administrative thing, who is going to make those kinds of administrative decisions? Direct democracy isn't really a feasible form of governance outside of extraordinarily small groups.
I agree that voting for a party is rather stupid, and often times people get into a team sports kind of mentality regarding their candidates that is unhealthy. There are ways we might improve our republic and make voting more effective, but the basic idea of voting for representatives is a far more fair and manageable system than any of the alternatives and gives the citizenry far more power. It would be nice if the rhetoric and vitriol could get tempered and we could discuss the issues and policies, but we have to choose our imperfect and not imagine some impossible perfect governance. At least, until Christ returns as king.
Upvote
0
trophy33
Well-Known Member
- Nov 18, 2018
- 13,831
- 5,697
- Country
- Czech Republic
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I agree that it would be harder to implement for more complex systems like the US. However, because nobody actually tried it, I do not know what would it be like. In the age of digitization, scaling should not be such a problem. In the 18th century, it would be much more difficult.
Well, both system have some advantages and disadvantages, thats for sure. The representative democracy leads to corruption, career politicians, constant lying, scheming, idols, extremism, blind trust, is expensive, grows the government and its power over citizens, leads to adopting laws the citizens did not ask for or even hate.
On the other hand, a common citizen does not have to vote about something every month, so its seems easier to implement.
Some mixture seems to be ideal - citizens voting directly for the things that influence them and as small and weak government as possible.
But it also requires the citizens of the country to be educated, moderate, orderly and ethical. So the overall culture is also needed to be on some stage of development. If the citizens are wild, violent or uneducated, direct democracy and weak government could be worse than a strong government with strong policing.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,682
- 3,596
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Something close was tried with the Articles of Confederation, and that failed miserably. But scaling is putting the issue mildly, as anyone who has tried to get some form of direct democracy workable with more than 12 or so people can attest.
Yeah, both systems are imperfect. But direct democracy doesn't fix the biggest issue in representative democracy, which is voter disinterest.
There's also the fact that republics put a check on what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" where the 51% steamroll the 49%.
Possibly, though depending on what a person expects government to do the minimum size is going the change. If we expect it to protect the citizenry from all enemies foreign and domestic, it needs to be fairly large in modern economies.
Upvote
0
trophy33
Well-Known Member
- Nov 18, 2018
- 13,831
- 5,697
- Country
- Czech Republic
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
In the representative democracy, at least the possibility of the immediate appealability of politicians should be implemented.
Because it happens all the time that politicians lie before the elections or behave inappropriately, but people must suffer them for 4-5 years.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,682
- 3,596
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There are theoretically ways to revoke most politicians right to govern, though not always through the electorate.
Yeah, though even in places where recalls are available they're often prohibitive and for somewhat good reason.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
