Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Kale100]

I am afraid I don't know about 'your long history of election fraud'. You'll have to be specific if you want to pursue this line.

The recent history of American Presidential elections is not one of fraud. Al Gore was pipped to the post by his near miss in Florida, but there was no widespread or systematic fraud as far as I know. Trump lost by a landslide last time round despite his unfounded allegations. (Just so you know where I stand on that issue.)

I woulds rather read comments on ways to improve democratic processes. That could include safeguarding elections but that has already been well aired elsewhere.

As far as I'm concerned, the elections are maybe not fraudulent, but are not 100% 'free and fair' (to use the popular buzzline) due to 1st amendment violations by proxy. The federal government creates laws regarding workplace harassment, hostile work environment, anti-discrimination, etc. that force employers to regulate the speech of their employees in ways that disallows them to voice certain political positions. I'm sure something similar goes on with social media too, but I wouldn't know, I've never used it. But anyways, how can you have democracy without the free exchange of ideas?

As far as improving democratic processes, to build off the Churchill quote in the OP
''The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter''.
I'd be interested in trialing a system where 10 or so eligible voters nominate a representative (head of the family, trusted friend, etc.) who then votes in the elections. Might prove beneficial to the competency of the voting pool.

 

[Whyayeman]

As far as I'm concerned, the elections are maybe not fraudulent, but are not 100% 'free and fair' (to use the popular buzzline) due to 1st amendment violations by proxy. The federal government creates laws regarding workplace harassment, hostile work environment, anti-discrimination, etc. that force employers to regulate the speech of their employees in ways that disallows them to voice certain political positions. I'm sure something similar goes on with social media too, but I wouldn't know, I've never used it. But anyways, how can you have democracy without the free exchange of ideas?

As far as improving democratic processes, to build off the Churchill quote in the OP
''The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter''.
I'd be interested in trialing a system where 10 or so eligible voters nominate a representative (head of the family, trusted friend, etc.) who then votes in the elections. Might prove beneficial to the competency of the voting pool.

Surely this reduction in voting is the opposite of democracy? It reduces the franchise by 90% or so. I think it would be difficult for even a small group to achieve a consensus. Perhaps you could suggest some advantages.

 

[Kale100]

Surely this reduction in voting is the opposite of democracy? It reduces the franchise by 90% or so. I think it would be difficult for even a small group to achieve a consensus. Perhaps you could suggest some advantages.

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.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

As far as I'm concerned, the elections are maybe not fraudulent, but are not 100% 'free and fair' (to use the popular buzzline) due to 1st amendment violations by proxy. The federal government creates laws regarding workplace harassment, hostile work environment, anti-discrimination, etc. that force employers to regulate the speech of their employees in ways that disallows them to voice certain political positions. I'm sure something similar goes on with social media too, but I wouldn't know, I've never used it. But anyways, how can you have democracy without the free exchange of ideas?

Why do you think that politics should be a typical work topic? What if you and your boss are on opposite sides of the political spectrum? Do you really want your boss deciding your work schedule or promotion status if politics are a common discussion?

 

[Kale100]

Why do you think that politics should be a typical work topic? What if you and your boss are on opposite sides of the political spectrum? Do you really want your boss deciding your work schedule or promotion status if politics are a common discussion?

It sounds like you are quite concerned about my occupational success, I am thankful but don't want to burden you, let me worry about it.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

It sounds like you are quite concerned about my occupational success, I am thankful but don't want to burden you, let me worry about it.

I didn't mean you personally. I meant should the workplace especially between employer and employee be a place for political discussion?

 

[Kale100]

I didn't mean you personally. I meant should the workplace especially between employer and employee be a place for political discussion?

I'm aware you didn't mean me personally. Your question is irrelevant though. I am proposing that the current laws that de facto restrict certain political discussion be removed, and if employers so choose, they can replace them with company policy.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I'm aware you didn't mean me personally. Your question is irrelevant though. I am proposing that the current laws that de facto restrict certain political discussion be removed, and if employers so choose, they can replace them with company policy.

I know I'm playing catch up here in this thread so my apologies. Are there specific examples you are thinking of?

 

[Whyayeman]

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.

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.)

 

[Occams Barber]

I'd be interested in trialing a system where 10 or so eligible voters nominate a representative (head of the family, trusted friend, etc.) who then votes in the elections. Might prove beneficial to the competency of the voting pool.

It might shock you to learn that voting is compulsory in Australia. By voting I mean attending a polling booth or lodging a postal ballot. No-one checks what you actually write on the ballot. If you don't vote (without good reason) there is a small fine. Voter turnout is normally above 90%.

We've been doing this since 1924 and the sky hasn't yet fallen. In fact, it is probably partially responsible for the success of minor party and independent candidates.

Back in 2017 we had a non-compulsory postal survey on same sex marriage. Everyone received a postal vote and was asked to send it back in the mail = no compulsion. Around 80% of eligible voters returned a survey form.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Different people always have different demands, there's no "what the people want", 'cause you can't please everyone, those who try to please everyone often end up pleasing no one.

Definitely one of the problems is a party gets a narrow majority. And unless you have some sort of referendum on all policies they may well implement some with which the majority do not approve. Then again, if complex matters are left to lay people then you get decisions made which are not necessarily in the best interests of all. Brexit being the example. But the same sex marriage vote in Australia would be a good example where a referendum was a reasonable option. No complex multi layered decision making (we have another coming up next week on another matter which I won't bother going into).

 

[Bradskii]

I'd be interested in trialing a system where 10 or so eligible voters nominate a representative (head of the family, trusted friend, etc.) who then votes in the elections. Might prove beneficial to the competency of the voting pool.

We kinda have that in a way. A small group of people (relative to the size of the total electorate) agree on who should represent them (they have a vote to decide who that person will be) and the person that gets the most votes out of all the representatives in an area gets to represent that area's concerns in government or to the government and has a say in running the whole show. In other words, he or she votes for or against policies as the representative of that (relatively) small group of people. 'Cept that instead of 10 people, there's 60,000 in my area.

It's kinda the same system writ large.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I am afraid I don't know about 'your long history of election fraud'. You'll have to be specific if you want to pursue this line.

The recent history of American Presidential elections is not one of fraud. Al Gore was pipped to the post by his near miss in Florida, but there was no widespread or systematic fraud as far as I know. Trump lost by a landslide last time round despite his unfounded allegations. (Just so you know where I stand on that issue.)

I woulds rather read comments on ways to improve democratic processes. That could include safeguarding elections but that has already been well aired elsewhere.

Democratic election is just another false god people blindly put their trust in, they fail to acknowloedge that those who cast the vote don't matter, those who count the votes do. In the past elections, ballots were being harvented in many institutions and neighborhoods, election laws were relaxed, security was loosed, and many verification process was omitted. There used to be a chain of custody to trace every ballot, in 2020 though you didn't have any of that, it was the least transparent election in history. Then many states planned to audit the results, there were ten senators signed up for an audit, but all of that was aborted after the January 6 riot. That left a huge breeding ground for fraud, many otherwise invalid ballots were validated, in some places there were more ballots than total population. All of these are just a scratch on the ground, and technically it was all legalized.

All of these being said, it doesn't matter who wins the election, because the real powers that be are the institutions - schools, media, corporations, agencies, hospitals, police, NGOs, etc. And the vast majority of them have gone corrupt, it's a systematic decline which no politician can fix. American constitute and the whole system at large was made only for a moral and religious people, it was wholly inadequate to the government of any other. You wanna "improve" democratic process, start improving your own household, your own community, your own school, your own office.

 

[Bradskii]

Democratic election is just another false god people blindly put their trust in...

So that idea of having one person having the proxy vote for a few others in an election...it wasn't going to be a democratic election? Do you have another name for it or some further explanations as to how it would work so that you can show it wouldn't be democratic?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

So that idea of having one person having the proxy vote for a few others in an election...it wasn't going to be a democratic election? Do you have another name for it or some further explanations as to how it would work so that you can show it wouldn't be democratic?

I understand your entrenched position in the validity of this system, and I have to intention to challenge it by any means. I'll just put it this way - like any data processing system, the rule of the game is garbage in, garbage out. If your ballot input is suspicious, your election result is suspicious. If your ballot input is trustworthy, your election result is trustworthy. The system itself is neutral.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand your entrenched position...

I don't have an entrenched position. I'm open to any suggestions as to how any system can be improved. But it will be assumed that any process that is proposed is fair and above board.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I don't have an entrenched position. I'm open to any suggestions as to how any system can be improved. But it will be assumed that any process that is proposed is fair and above board.

Yes, you do, as long as you assume the process is secure and impenetrable, when in fact it's neither. And I've also explained garbage in garbage out, improving the system without improving the input does not improve the output.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I don't have an entrenched position. I'm open to any suggestions as to how any system can be improved. But it will be assumed that any process that is proposed is fair and above board.

You know, there's a popular saying from Japan known as the "three wise monkeys" that has gone terribly wrong in the West: "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." Originally, this is a proverb perfectly in line with biblical principles, it urges you to resist evil and NOT be evil even when you see evil and hear evil all day long. In the west, though, it became a complacent attitude of ignoring evil and pretending they don't exist, that's the attitude of the general public when it comes down to all these shenanigans in the election, the lukewarm attitude of the Laodiceans. If you dare to raise any question, especially after the January 6 incident, they'll instantly dehumanize you by labelling you a Trumper and enemy of democracy.

 

[Bradskii]

If you dare to raise any question, especially after the January 6 incident, they'll instantly dehumanize you by labelling you a Trumper and enemy of democracy.

Jon, if you want an argument about Jan 6, take it elsewhere. There are plenty of threads where you can voice your opinion on that matter, but this isn't one of them. Thanks.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Jon, if you want an argument about Jan 6, take it elsewhere. There are plenty of threads where you can voice your opinion on that matter, but this isn't one of them. Thanks.

No I don't, sir, you've greatly mistaken. I was just telling you that your assumption of the election process being "all fair and over the board" is wrong. Many third countries have biometric voter ID registrition and chain of custory, but not in America. Jan 6 was a symptom, not the cause, and I have to intention to be obsessed over it like many other people.