Jonathan_Gale
Well-Known Member
What's the point and purpose of any political system without addressing actual political grievances, friend? Why do you seek a better system if you have no complaints of the current one?
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.
What's the point and purpose of any political system without addressing actual political grievances, friend? Why do you seek a better system if you have no complaints of the current one?Good grief...count to ten, Bradskii.
Mate, I know this is what could be described as a political thread as it is discussing how we choose our political leaders. But this is NOT a thread for discussing politics per se. So please, take your transgenderism and climate complaints plus any other bees you have in your bonnet about anything else except the subject of this thread to threads that actually discuss those matters! You seem intent on derailing this one and I will report the next post you make that tries to do that.
Policies are implemented by those who govern when they are voted in. This is about what we do to vote them in. How that system works. Can we improve what we have or is there something better.What's the point and purpose of any political system without addressing actual political grievances, friend? Why do you seek a better system if you have no complaints of the current one?
Well then, I don't know about other countries, but in America there're these Super PACs (Political Action Committee) in charge of raising funds for the candidate in primary and general elections. Following Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial supreme court ruling, there's no limits on individual and organizational donations to influence elections, any restriction is considered unconstitutional against free speech, and that "opened the floodgates to widespread corruption". So if you're concerned about how the system works, the answer is neither domocracy nor republic, but monstrous partisan machines, and Super PAC is just the tip of the iceberg. Candidates get in by the power of the Super PACs.Policies are implemented by those who govern when they are voted in. This is about what we do to vote them in. How that system works. Can we improve what we have or is there something better.
I am not the slightest bit interested in who you vote for or what they would like to do. The system you might like to suggest will be applicable for Democrats or Rebublicans, right or left, Liberals, Conservatives or Labor. It doesn't matter who gets in. It's how they get in is the purpose of the thread.
It does seem a problem. The guy with the huge war chest has a ridiculously large advantage over the one that is just getting by.Well then, I don't know about other countries, but in America there're these Super PACs (Political Action Committee) in charge of raising funds for the candidate in primary and general elections. Following Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial supreme court ruling, there's no limits on individual and organizational donations to influence elections, any restriction is considered unconstitutional against free speech, and that "opened the floodgates to widespread corruption". So if you're concerned about how the system works, the answer is neither domocracy nor republic, but monstrous partisan machines, and Super PAC is just the tip of the iceberg. Candidates get in by the power of the Super PACs.
Transgenderism isn't a science, so this statement is irrelevant in that case, but climatology *is* a science.
Yes, climatology is legitimate science, but make no mistake, blaming extreme weather conditions and natural disasters such as the Maui wildfire on human activities, namely burning fossil fuel and eating red meat, is both political and ideological. There's no real science to prove that such activities have any significant impact on air pressure, density or temporature, of which the extreme imbalance is the real cause of extreme weather conditions. In all pagan religions, these natural phenomena are perceived as divine retribution for the sin of mankind, and guess what the solution is? Punishing "offensive" behaviors and offering sacrifices to please the deities. Today's climate cult is just a modern form of such pagan religions. Those cultists have no regard for real science and no sympathy for the victims of such disasters, they only seize them as opportunities to push their evil agenda. If you want further discussion on this topic, maybe we should go to other places in respect of the OP.Nope. Climatology is a science and not politics or ideology. I hazard a guess (a well informed guess) that I know far more about climatology than you do and even more about the nature of science.
Assigning causation to specific events is difficult if not impossible, but in the statistical limit (which is what climate is), the aggregate effects can be sorted out.Yes, climatology is legitimate science, but make no mistake, blaming extreme weather conditions and natural disasters such as the Maui wildfire on human activities, namely burning fossil fuel and eating red meat, is both political and ideological.
As I suspected, you have no idea what you are talking about.There's no real science to prove that such activities have any significant impact on air pressure, density or temporature, of which the extreme imbalance is the real cause of extreme weather conditions.
I assumed all of your divergences here were due to your failed understanding of democracies and republics. If you can find the appropriate places, perhaps we can discuss this. I'll go grab a new irony meter since you've just blown mine out.If you want further discussion on this topic, maybe we should go to other places in respect of the OP.
I undrestand a lot, but it is written that we should not lean on our own understanding, but the wisdom of God, and the wisdom God tells me don't live in the abstract concepts, don't get lost in such theorycrafts, and don't get out of touch with reality.Assigning causation to specific events is difficult if not impossible, but in the statistical limit (which is what climate is), the aggregate effects can be sorted out.
As I suspected, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I assumed all of your divergences here were due to your failed understanding of democracies and republics. If you can find the appropriate places, perhaps we can discuss this. I'll go grab a new irony meter since you've just blown mine out.
Another problem is that neither the republicans nor the democrats tolerates renegade. Once in a while you have a few idealistic newcomers from the grassroots who campaigned on bringing meaningful changes in Washington, but most of them end up bowing down to the partisan machines, and their voices drowned in the prevailing narrative. If they don't, they will be disciplined by the establishment - the incumbent with magnanimously large war chest and unfathomably deep root, and they are in danger of losing donations, privileges, committee position, favorable media reports, etc.It does seem a problem. The guy with the huge war chest has a ridiculously large advantage over the one that is just getting by.
We’re not allowed to hash-out and explore the systems we find ourselves living under?What's the point and purpose of any political system without addressing actual political grievances, friend? Why do you seek a better system if you have no complaints of the current one?
kale said:You could say the same about representative democracy in general? 100 senators / 330 million people = 99.9999% reduction?
Assuming 10 people electing their personal representative resulted in a pool of individuals more intelligent & wise than the populous at large, that should lead to better candidates (this is the assumption that would need testing of course). And if it meant better candidates, I wouldn't feel disenfranchised letting cousin Jim vote for me.
The average voter is an idiot, therefore the candidates must try to appeal to idiots by doing idiotic things. I expect that anyone that is trusted by 10 people they know would be much more intelligent/wise than the average voter. Democracy is 'government of the people, by the people', ergo intuitively a democracy is only as good as its people (and in the context of democracy 'person = voter'). Improve the voters, improve the democracy.Yes, a huge assumption.
You have 100 senators and 435 Congressmen and women. And a President. Elected by as many of the electorate who choose to vote. And when they displease you, you can change them. And if none of them are to your taste, you can offer yourself as a replacement!
I really don't see the point of this ten-people-representative. I would like to understand what you think is the benefit of reducing the franchise in this way. (Not to mention how this could be put into practice.)
I don't agree that the average voter is an idiot. Mathematically, that claim is illiterate nonsense. It would be better to say that the average voter is of average intelligence and that makes mincemeat of your contention.The average voter is an idiot, therefore the candidates must try to appeal to idiots by doing idiotic things. I expect that anyone that is trusted by 10 people they know would be much more intelligent/wise than the average voter. Democracy is 'government of the people, by the people', ergo intuitively a democracy is only as good as its people (and in the context of democracy 'person = voter'). Improve the voters, improve the democracy.
I'm also not sure why you think this 'tenthing' is disenfranchising.
1) Nitpicking semantics is not constructive when the idea is obvious, replace idiot with incompetent if it will make you feel better.1) I don't agree that the average voter is an idiot. Mathematically, that claim is illiterate nonsense. It would be better to say that the average voter is of average intelligence and that makes mincemeat of your contention.
2) What you call 'tenthing' only serves to put an extra layer of voting into the system. Ten people (though you did not really define these groups) choose one to decide for them; that person then votes. In any group of ten there will be a minority who are unable to vote for their preferred candidate.
3) And what about a group of ten idiots?
You could say the same about representative democracy in general? 100 senators / 330 million people = 99.9999% reduction?
Assuming 10 people electing their personal representative resulted in a pool of individuals more intelligent & wise than the populous at large, that should lead to better candidates (this is the assumption that would need testing of course). And if it meant better candidates, I wouldn't feel disenfranchised letting cousin Jim vote for me.
It doesn't. What it does is reveal your attitude to people.Nitpicking semantics is not constructive when the idea is obvious, replace idiot with incompetent if it will make you feel better.
You make that claim with certainty, which means you should have robust examples to reference, care to share?It's not going to make the candidate pools any better or get better outcomes.
It's hard to imagine and quite probably "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron like 'military intelligence" but there's also a cultural dimension to security/insecurity.
For some cultures the 'strong man' leader is preferred. China comes to mind,
OB
This falls under the principle of you've provided no evidence for your claim that fewer voters would result in better candidates, so I feel justified in tossing that unsupported claim in the trash where it belongs until you can provide some evidence. In the meantime, your "eliminate 90% of the eligible voters" will have no substantial support. If you think otherwise go find some people who want to give up their vote, even to someone close to them that they trust.You make that claim with certainty, which means you should have robust examples to reference, care to share?
It's hard to imagine and quite probably "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron like 'military intelligence" but there's also a cultural dimension to security/insecurity.
For some cultures the 'strong man' leader is preferred. China comes to mind,
OB
Then again, you look at the average voter and think...'I dunno. Maybe they know enough to make a reasonable decision.' But he or she is the average voter. Half the population is below that standard.I have to agree that most people with the franchise shouldn’t actually have that access.
But that’s not democracy.
Democracy relies on having such a robust and informed electorate that even the (politically) blind and stupid cannot sway elections away from the best candidates for the offices available.
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?