Some questions about democracy

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd fucking KILL for a prehensile penis.

I like it best when mine is completely hensile.

[Audley Strange]

Since democracy representative or otherwise implies a rule by the people, which people should be chosen?

Why do we not allow children to vote from the age of literacy? We could make them pass a little "citizen" test and if they pass it give them a voting card.

What would be questions on the citizenship test? And, why should the stupid not be represented in a democratic government?

But, to answer your question -- why do we not allow children to vote from the age of literacy? Because society has determined that their vote is not worthwhile.

Thanks CES

I don't know what questions we could have on that test, perhaps some basic literacy and cognition tests, we could apply it across the board not just on children "Pass this get a voting card". Perhaps the stupid should be represented, I'm not saying we should exclude them, just throwing ideas.

Society determined that black people could be bought and sold, it determined women were not allowed to vote, nor were most men, peasants were irrelevant. Should we consider that perhaps we may be wrong about Children's votes not being worthwhile especially given we are not allowing them a decision on the world we are leaving them in?

If that's too much how about reducing the voting age, or even increasing it?

I'm for increasing it to 21, with an "advisory" vote mandatory in schools and colleges where students are taught the structure of government, required to read the core documents that relate to the formation and structure of our political systems, and taught the process and procedure relative to elections.

I would also be open to considering a rule that allows only federal income tax payers (net payers) to vote in federal elections, and state income or property tax payers to vote in state elections.

Would you be in favour of raising the ages for things like joining the military and consent, perhaps allowing those under 21 who work to pay no tax since they have no ability to decide how to be represented? Not a trap or an accusation, just curious since your second part seems to suggest they idea of no representation without taxation

Should those who have willfully never contributed to the state be allowed to influence it?

I feel the process has been generally aiming towards more rather than less people being allowed to vote. Is that a good thing?

Is 4/5 years too short a term or too long?

Either sounds fine. I think the problem is that the head of State, the executive branch, has too much power, and too many people don't hold their Representatives and Senators accountable. Heck, too many people don't know who their representatives and Senators are.[/quote]

You issue seems to be, The Fed, which seems to be most people's issue regardless of political views, from an outsider's POV at least. Is it inhibiting the Democratic process? I'm genuinely attempting to look at your political system since I was actually impressed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and compare it with ours in Europe. Because I think we could all be doing better.

I think all of us need a reformation. So I'm trying to gauge peoples actual ideas of how we could improve our systems.

[pErvinalia]

I'm a Hot man living in Paris, but who is Hotman Paris?

A rockstar celebrity lawyer in Indonesia who defended, for a little while, an Aussie girl who was caught with a boogeyboard bag full of dope at the airport. She was real white trash. The whole thing was a bit of a comedy. Hotman certainly added to that...

[pErvinalia]

Ya know, you could all take lessons from Tyrannical on how to avoid making personal attacks

Fuck off, Bruce!





(how did I do?)

[Coito ergo sum]

Since democracy representative or otherwise implies a rule by the people, which people should be chosen?

Why do we not allow children to vote from the age of literacy? We could make them pass a little "citizen" test and if they pass it give them a voting card.

What would be questions on the citizenship test? And, why should the stupid not be represented in a democratic government?

But, to answer your question -- why do we not allow children to vote from the age of literacy? Because society has determined that their vote is not worthwhile.

Thanks CES

I don't know what questions we could have on that test, perhaps some basic literacy and cognition tests, we could apply it across the board not just on children "Pass this get a voting card". Perhaps the stupid should be represented, I'm not saying we should exclude them, just throwing ideas.

Society determined that black people could be bought and sold, it determined women were not allowed to vote, nor were most men, peasants were irrelevant. Should we consider that perhaps we may be wrong about Children's votes not being worthwhile especially given we are not allowing them a decision on the world we are leaving them in?

Yep - and there you have hit upon the great problem with democracy, and it is one of the reasons why I support individual rights and liberties as one of the means by which we check and balance against the vicissitudes of the masses. Of course we should consider that we may be wrong -- we may be right -- but, we may be wrong. I'm of the view that we're largely right not to let pre-18 year olds vote. I'd raise the age, and tie it to taxpaying in some way, at this point.

If that's too much how about reducing the voting age, or even increasing it?

I'm for increasing it to 21, with an "advisory" vote mandatory in schools and colleges where students are taught the structure of government, required to read the core documents that relate to the formation and structure of our political systems, and taught the process and procedure relative to elections.

I would also be open to considering a rule that allows only federal income tax payers (net payers) to vote in federal elections, and state income or property tax payers to vote in state elections.

Would you be in favour of raising the ages for things like joining the military and consent, perhaps allowing those under 21 who work to pay no tax since they have no ability to decide how to be represented? Not a trap or an accusation, just curious since your second part seems to suggest they idea of no representation without taxation

Sure -- I'm for pragmatism with the age of joining the military. If 18 is too early, based on psychology and effectiveness in battle, then sure. I'm not positive what the age should be. 18 seems o.k. to me, but I may just be used to it.

I would be willing to consider those under 21 who work to pay no tax, if they aren't allowed to vote, or to allow any net tax payer, at any age, to vote. If you're paying for it, you get a say. Something like that.

I'm not positive I would be for the idea of limiting voting to only those taxpayers -- I only mean that whereas a few years ago I would have dismissed the idea out of hand, now I am starting to come around to the merits of the idea. As soon as a citizenry can just vote themselves largess from the State coffers which are filled by others -- as soon as a small minority foots the bill for the majority, we have a problem that may never be solvable. You'll never get a majority of dole recipients to vote themselves out of the dole. That would be like, Congress voting for a pay and benefits cut.

Should those who have willfully never contributed to the state be allowed to influence it?

I feel the process has been generally aiming towards more rather than less people being allowed to vote. Is that a good thing?

Is 4/5 years too short a term or too long?

Either sounds fine. I think the problem is that the head of State, the executive branch, has too much power, and too many people don't hold their Representatives and Senators accountable. Heck, too many people don't know who their representatives and Senators are.[/quote]

You issue seems to be, The Fed, which seems to be most people's issue regardless of political views, from an outsider's POV at least. Is it inhibiting the Democratic process? I'm genuinely attempting to look at your political system since I was actually impressed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and compare it with ours in Europe. Because I think we could all be doing better.

I think all of us need a reformation. So I'm trying to gauge peoples actual ideas of how we could improve our systems.[/quote]

[MrJonno]

The various ages of maturity are a mess, but whatever age is chosen it really does need to be the same where ever possible , I would probably have the age of sexual consent lower as if its too low its unenforcable not to mention adult abuse, but everything else smoking,drinking, voting, driving, joining the army should be the same

[rachelbean]

Yeah, and you shouldn't be able to get married before you can have a drink

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, and you shouldn't be able to get married before you can have a drink unless you're drunk

[pErvinalia]

You shouldn't be allowed to stay married unless you're permanently drunk.

[JimC]

You shouldn't be allowed to stay married unless you're permanently drunk.

[Audley Strange]

The various ages of maturity are a mess, but whatever age is chosen it really does need to be the same where ever possible , I would probably have the age of sexual consent lower as if its too low its unenforcable not to mention adult abuse, but everything else smoking,drinking, voting, driving, joining the army should be the same

For once we agree. It seems to me an odd world view where you would allow people to be considered old enough to create life, but not old enough to take responsibility for their own. It's obvious point appears to create a situation want to keep them as children, but for the ability to fuck them?

[lofuji]

As a latecomer to this discussion, I may have missed the point I'm going to make, but for as long as I can remember I've voted in one of two ways: I either vote for the local "legalise cannabis" candidate, or, if he's not standing, I write on my ballot paper "I couldn't find anyone on this list who didn't make me want to throw up". As a former candidate in local elections, I know that such "spoiled ballots" have to be seen by all candidates.

[Tyrannical]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

[Tyrannical]

As a latecomer to this discussion, I may have missed the point I'm going to make, but for as long as I can remember I've voted in one of two ways: I either vote for the local "legalise cannabis" candidate, or, if he's not standing, I write on my ballot paper "I couldn't find anyone on this list who didn't make me want to throw up". As a former candidate in local elections, I know that such "spoiled ballots" have to be seen by all candidates.

If smoking pot is the most important policy you can think of, then please don't vote ever again. You're part of the problem, not the solution.

[Jason]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

Disenfranchise the poor. Brilliant.