The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: toothyp1cks on December 10, 2010, 07:30:40 AM

Title: Democracy 2.0
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 10, 2010, 07:30:40 AM
Democracy 2.0

As we all know by now Democracy is only an effective form of Government when you weed out the retards. Otherwise you end up with America.
Trolling aside, I think that Democracy could be improved in several ways but foremost among these is the voting process. Voting Ė for those of us who live under a rock Ė is when a society gets together and puts its opinion in a box. These opinions are counted and the one that turns up the most wins. In a True Democracy you get to vote for your leader and he then makes decisions. There are multiple parties and etc. Etc.

The problem is that you get people who are idiots. Thatís not YOU of course, god forbid, but its everyone else who doesnít agree with you. Regardless, they shouldnít be in charge of the country because they can barely keep charge of their car/marriage/children/whatever. Democracy makes these idiots equal to non-idiots.

BUT THERE IS GOOD NEWS. We can fix them. All we need to do is educate them. But how do you encourage Billy Bob Smith to read up on politics instead of watching Faux News (see what I did there). Itís simple really: he takes a test before he votes on the policies of the major parties. He passes and his vote counts, he fails and his vote does not. Simple. The test would be anywhere between 1 Ė 2 hours long and while not being EXHAUSTIVE it would cover the important bits on political policies about current affairs, stances on defence etc.

How would the test be decided upon?
The same way they decide on University tests etc. The goal of the test is to ensure the subjects have a comprehensive knowledge on the policies of the major parties. Questions to be chosen accordingly.

But EVIL KOMMUNISTS USE SECRET TEST TO TAKE OVER.
After the election the test and its answers would be made freely available, along with you being able to access AT LEAST your own test paper (online, probably). If the test is ruled TOO KOMMUNIST by a specially appointed court then the process is redone.

Political bias by the test markers?
Crosscheck the tests. A lot.

Itís too much effort to study for a test!
Nothing in this world worth having comes easy. If you want competent leaders picked by a qualified voting base then you had better be prepared to accept that PERHAPS it might take some god damn work on your behalf. Stop being a lazy faggot and get interested in your countryís politics. You should ALREADY be studying the pros and cons of each major party. The government shouldnít HAVE to force you to with threats.

Itíd cost too much!
RAISE TAXES. FUCK THE POOR.
But seriously, it might cost a pretty penny (I donít actually know but letís assume it does for safetyís sake) but itíd be worth it. Spend less on whatever useless black hole DARPA (moar liek DERPA amirite?) is sinking funds into.

Nobody would bother voting because itís too much effort.
Make it mandatory. If itís still just too much effort then hand in a blank sheet of paper. Easy.

In conclusion:
Everybody can vote. They just have to actually know a ratís ass about current politics for their vote to count. Thereís no bullshit IQ testing or anything, if you pass the test your vote counts. If you donít, better luck next time.


Now then, whereís the glaring flaw Iím missing.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Wendy on December 10, 2010, 07:50:18 AM
While I haven't had the time to think up a decent remark on this system, I am fairly certain it belongs in Philosophy, Religion & Society. I'm going to go PM a mod and ask if a move is appropriate.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 10, 2010, 07:53:05 AM
Politicians don't want you to know what a bill really entails. They want to fear monger you a simplified version in order to gain your vote.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Wendy on December 10, 2010, 08:14:09 AM
Also, "weeding out the retards" as you put it, seems to me like you're eliminating the ordinary man's right to vote. That goes against the very core of democracy.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 10, 2010, 08:23:04 AM
Also, "weeding out the retards" as you put it, seems to me like you're eliminating the ordinary man's right to vote. That goes against the very core of democracy.
Nope. Right is still there. He can vote, as long as he passes the test that ensures he has a fairly balanced view of things.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Wendy on December 10, 2010, 09:18:27 AM
So basically, dissenters shall be suppressed?
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 10, 2010, 09:20:43 AM
And then the answers get posted on some blog, along with the affirmation that the answers are lies, and that this is the way you should answer in order for your vote to count.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Wendy on December 10, 2010, 09:25:04 AM
DEMOCRACY - FUCK YEAH!

Feel free to sing that in the tune to the Team America: World Police theme.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 10, 2010, 09:26:18 AM
This is a retarded idea. You're basically restricting the right to vote to people with a certain viewpoint.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Benocrates on December 10, 2010, 09:28:02 AM
Ridiculous theory is ridiculous. You really want to make revolution more difficult?
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: berny_74 on December 10, 2010, 09:32:22 AM
Political Eugenics?

Berny
Shoulda left for work!
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 10, 2010, 10:24:31 AM
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).

The best you can do is provide for access to education.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 10, 2010, 07:38:41 PM
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This wouldn't supress people's opinions because the test questions wouldn't be (as I think some of you think)

DO YOU SUPPORT GLORIOUS LEADER?
YES/NO

They would be more along the lines of:

List 3 changes is the Random Party Of Madeupness proposing in the education sector.
or:
Compare and contrast the economic policies of Party A and Party B.
or:
If Party C is elected what changes will they implement regarding drug laws?


The questions would be politically neutral and their only purpose is to ensure that people know a bit about the other parties as well. People can still vote for whoever they like and, if after thay have reasearched Party B's policies and still feel Party A is the better choice then they can go ahead and vote Party A. As long as they know what the alternatives are.

EDIT: Spelling mistakes
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 10, 2010, 07:43:19 PM
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).

Yes, they do have a right to vote. However, its pretty obvious that somebody who knows nothing about the policies of the parties is not able to make an informed decision (the kind required for democracy to actually work). So this methodcould be used to encourage (force) people to go out and educate themselves.

People with radical viewpoints also have a right to vote. However, often these viewpoints are silly. Hopefully, the research would change their views.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 10, 2010, 08:23:43 PM
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).

Yes, they do have a right to vote. However, its pretty obvious that somebody who knows nothing about the policies of the parties is not able to make an informed decision (the kind required for democracy to actually work).

No, a decision being "informed" is not a necessary component of democracy.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 10, 2010, 10:29:07 PM
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).

Yes, they do have a right to vote. However, its pretty obvious that somebody who knows nothing about the policies of the parties is not able to make an informed decision (the kind required for democracy to actually work).

No, a decision being "informed" is not a necessary component of democracy.

But it is a necessary component of a sustainable, functioning democracy. The main problem with democracy is that idiots elect idiots. Take away the idiocy and democracy is a very good system.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Parsifal on December 10, 2010, 10:35:32 PM
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This wouldn't supress people's opinions because the test questions wouldn't be

And who decides what the questions should be? In other words, who gets to decide which people shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: toothyp1cks on December 10, 2010, 10:45:56 PM
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This wouldn't supress people's opinions because the test questions wouldn't be

And who decides what the questions should be? In other words, who gets to decide which people shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Obviously not the government. An independent commission made up of the "most qualified" people from every relevant field to that one specific election. And not just one "most qualified" person - there would be multiple people from every field to ensure a balanced view.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Parsifal on December 10, 2010, 10:51:29 PM
Obviously not the government. An independent commission made up of the "most qualified" people from every relevant field to that one specific election. And not just one "most qualified" person - there would be multiple people from every field to ensure a balanced view.

And who decides who is on this commission? In other words, who gets to decide who tells people whether or not they can vote?
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Mykael on December 10, 2010, 11:33:30 PM
Obviously not the government. An independent commission made up of the "most qualified" people from every relevant field to that one specific election. And not just one "most qualified" person - there would be multiple people from every field to ensure a balanced view.

And who decides who is on this commission? In other words, who gets to decide who tells people whether or not they can vote?
Trusted corporate sponsors.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: General Douchebag on December 11, 2010, 04:37:57 AM
The only way to ensure that only educated votes count and not be undemocratic is to make everyone educated. I thought that was obvious, but we're still taking money out of education to fund wars and an oppressive legal system that wouldn't be needed if we put the money into education in the first place.
Title: Re: Democracy 2.0
Post by: Parsifal on December 11, 2010, 05:37:06 AM
The only way to ensure that only educated votes count and not be undemocratic is to make everyone educated. I thought that was obvious, but we're still taking money out of education to fund wars and an oppressive legal system that wouldn't be needed if we put the money into education in the first place.

Welcome to politics.

(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/993/1283097091628.jpg)