I consider that they could make it law that a candidate does what he or she promises; maybe even work out a written contract which must be fulfilled if the person is elected; the candidate is simply a hired worker, required to do what the voters have decided.
The candidate must release funds to hold "hostage", to make sure the candidate does as promised.
A problem can be that voters do not know all the information in a certain area of government, plus even candidates may not know the secret info that intelligence will show them only after they are elected.
But I suppose you could have a matching test to see if voters know what they are voting for, so you know if they are qualified voters, as much as they can reasonably know things. But a voter could come to the booth and then read what are the positions of candidates, and then vote, right?
And if the majority hires someone to do what he or she promises, then the opposition is expected to honor that vote and help it to be done, with the resources they contribute.
But what if the majority puts down people of the minority, somehow, in an unfair way? You could have taxed finances awarded to politicians, in proportion to how many votes each one gets. And each may use their money for what their voters expect . . . being legally required to honor their voters, since it is their money.
So, for example, if democrats have forty-nine percent of Congress, they get forty-nine percent of treasury funds to use; all must balance their budget or pay from their own "as hostage" moneyplus pay a certain percentage to ease the national or state debt, or it comes from their own "hostage" funds > "make them put their money where their mouth is" They are free to combine money with republicans or not. And "pork" things must be voter approved, requiring this by law.
Would it be wise to have a test requiring people to match political views with the canident that holds them before they were allowed to vote?
No. But I'm all for having to take a test before one can be electable.
The problem I have with the current implementation of secular democracy is that it's not a "best man for the job" kind of thing.
I'ld rather have someone that I dislike but capable then someone that I like but not capable.
I find it baffling that the US came close to having someone like Sarah Palin as vice president. Scary, actually.
First of all I fail to see how any can be pressured to vote for someone. The ballot is secret and there's no way to know how someone voted.
Secondly, what gives anyone the right to dictate the criteria someone uses to decide who to vote for? If I choose to vote based on issue, party or "I like his hair"... that's my choice. The value of a vote is not only that we get to decided who to vote for, but also that we get to decide why we vote. The issues/things that are important to me can lead to to vote for the same person as my neighbor even if he has drastically different issues/things that are important to him.
NannaNae said:Yes a drug test !!
when a few years ago they found not contacted tribes of native Americans in the Amazon.
so one tribe is called Zoe ( which in greek means life) takes care of it old , it very very old..and nurtures baby animals and all it's kids.. and it is about reproducing and protecting life.. they do have their fails... but they love life..
now the other tribe is Suruwaha
and it is a party hardy tribe and it is high on their drug or choice all the time and there is no one in the tribe over thirty.
they let the weak or sick babies die in the forest .
and all of the very drugged up , brain fried and miserable commit suicide by thirty years old.
there is no way in anyone universe the Suruwaha has any right to decide what Zoe can or can't do..
you see it seems mankind has always only had two tribes. and the amazon proves it
ones who worship life and
the ones who worship death .
and the ones who worship death and will not be there and have no right to vote for the one who cares , who cares for their young , their sick, their old, who nurture nature and values everyone around them..
the drugged up death-ers are high and don't have the right to vote for anyone tomorrows.. because they don't care about anyone else or tomorrow.. they are only in this life for what they can take.
and the like of druggies and suicide bombers and immoral of all sorts are just more death-ers bring more death into this world. they do not honor the life they were given and have no right to vote for anyone else future.
to the op, no. thats a bad test
but i do think there should be some light political literacy test to vote.
if you cant name the vp or tell me which party controls the house, why are you even voting? what are you even voting for? you dont even know.
Not specifically, but voting should not be universal - it should be a privilege of good character, and not a right to all and sundry. Giving out the vote to all is giving out the vote to the mob (who will then out-number the decent).
The "mob" and the "decent" are the same people
Self-evidently, this is not even remotely true. The mob are an ungodly majority, and the decent are a godly minorty. I wish the numbers were the othe way around, but they are not.
because some people are too stupid to be a determining factor in the future of this economy
why would we want someone voting who cant even be bothered to find out what theyre voting for?
because some people are too stupid to be a determining factor in the future of this economy
why would we want someone voting who cant even be bothered to find out what theyre voting for?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?