Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 28 2001,14:37
I suggest that as long as we're being revolutionary, we go with a pure democracy.
Someone here is smart enough to figure out a secure way to vote on the internet. We do it. And the people...not elected Representatives...vote on every law put up for vote.
Perhaps work out a system whereas only 10 laws are available per week, to keep the "referees" from hiding an important law in the middle of 10,000 trivial ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Aug. 28 2001,15:48
If we do it that way, for the love of GOD please make sure there's a system in place to keep the scope of laws proposed to a MINIMUM. Otherwise, you're going to see laws proposed to change the value of pi to 3.0.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,10:29
If you go with a pure democracy (which I don't think is truly a good idea) then any change in legislation should be voted on, then if passed, shelved for three years and voted on again. If it still passes, then enact it into law. This will hopefully prevent reactionary stupidity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Cakedaddy on Aug. 29 2001,14:17
This will actually cover a few threads here. . . .
Voting? Fuck voting.
Immigration? Fuck rules.
Etc.
We make all decisions and the decisions are final. I mean, who are we kidding here? We already have all the answers to everything and are smarter than everyone else. Why do we have to ask for permission/opinions/etc? We don't. What we say goes because we will do it right any way. And people will live there, because everything is being done right.
Voting
No Congress, just pure democracy. Someone puts up an item for vote on the official submission forums, and if it gets the support of, say, 1% of the participants in this "floating Congress" then a real vote occurs on the front page of this crazy democratic circus where everyone will see it and vote on it. One week for all votes, and then it's done. 2/3 majority is required to enact any law, and 4/9 minority is sufficient to repeal any law.
Of course, the whole system would quite possibly collapse under the weight of the welfare systems and whatnot, but it would be a hell of a thing to watch.
Of course, the whole system would quite possibly collapse under the weight of the welfare systems and whatnot, but it would be a hell of a thing to watch.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
-
mbilderback
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:50 am
- Location: Memphis
- Contact:
I can't make new topics in this forum, so I'm stealing the "Voting" thread and moving it in a new direction.
I propose that anyone who receives 25% or more of their fiscal support from a government agency gives up his or her right to vote in that year. This would apply to folks on welfare, military personel, government employees, and even employees of contracting companies who's revenue is derived at least 25% from governmental contracts.
This might help cut down on the "bread & circuses" phenomenon. Those who aren't sharing in the "bread & circuses" are the one's that get to vote whether they should be continued or not.
Discuss.
EDIT - Or, maybe even better, anyone who receives (directly, or through one or more pass-through agencies) more money FROM governmental agencies than they pay in taxes TO governmental agencies give up thier right to vote. If you make a net income from the consideration of all governmental incomes and taxes and tax credits, you no vote. That's probably better than an arbitrary percentage.
I propose that anyone who receives 25% or more of their fiscal support from a government agency gives up his or her right to vote in that year. This would apply to folks on welfare, military personel, government employees, and even employees of contracting companies who's revenue is derived at least 25% from governmental contracts.
This might help cut down on the "bread & circuses" phenomenon. Those who aren't sharing in the "bread & circuses" are the one's that get to vote whether they should be continued or not.
Discuss.
EDIT - Or, maybe even better, anyone who receives (directly, or through one or more pass-through agencies) more money FROM governmental agencies than they pay in taxes TO governmental agencies give up thier right to vote. If you make a net income from the consideration of all governmental incomes and taxes and tax credits, you no vote. That's probably better than an arbitrary percentage.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8092
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
I like it.TPRJones wrote:Or, maybe even better, anyone who receives (directly, or through one or more pass-through agencies) more money FROM governmental agencies than they pay in taxes TO governmental agencies give up thier right to vote. If you make a net income from the consideration of all governmental incomes and taxes and tax credits, you no vote. That's probably better than an arbitrary percentage.
New voting issue: While requiring an intelligence test to gain the right to vote seems a bit too elitest for my tastes, I do like the idea of making voting forms intentionally obtuse. Design them so that someone not very bright or not paying attention will cast a null vote rather than a vote for the wrong candidate. Provide clear but lenghty instructions. Anyone smart enough to read the instructions and follow them can vote, everyone else is too stupid to be worth counting.
I don't see a downside, myself.
I don't see a downside, myself.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
And run the risk of disenfranchising those hundreds of billions of Americans suffering from ADD?TPRJones wrote:New voting issue: While requiring an intelligence test to gain the right to vote seems a bit too elitest for my tastes, I do like the idea of making voting forms intentionally obtuse. Design them so that someone not very bright or not paying attention will cast a null vote rather than a vote for the wrong candidate. Provide clear but lenghty instructions. Anyone smart enough to read the instructions and follow them can vote, everyone else is too stupid to be worth counting.
I don't see a downside, myself.
:p
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
-
mbilderback
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:50 am
- Location: Memphis
- Contact:
Ok, wrong. Lets get one thing straight. Abstracting something does two things, it 1 makes it easier to understand and quicker to compile, and 2 looses specificity. For a true representation, you MUST have a popular vote. Erase state lines when it comes to federal elections. 1 vote, 1 person.TheCatt wrote:No, but I wouldn't mind a little electoral college reform to make it reflect the composition of the country more closely.
Wacko.mbilderback wrote:TheCatt wrote:No, but I wouldn't mind a little electoral college reform to make it reflect the composition of the country more closely.
Ok, wrong. Lets get one thing straight. Abstracting something does two things, it 1 makes it easier to understand and quicker to compile, and 2 looses specificity. For a true representation, you MUST have a popular vote. Erase state lines when it comes to federal elections. 1 vote, 1 person.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Here's my proposal for when Malcolm rules the world.
1) A man enters the private booth.
2) Said my places said genitles in the "castrator 5000" device.
3) Man given opportunity to select various things, but each has the "castrate me" option included as well. IE, "Vote yes," Vote no," and "Castrate me" would be listed.
The problem I see is that Malcolm would make every button activate the castration function. The man would hear "How dare you question the wisdom of Malcolm!" and hear a toilet flushing sound as his genitles were deposided into a container.
1) A man enters the private booth.
2) Said my places said genitles in the "castrator 5000" device.
3) Man given opportunity to select various things, but each has the "castrate me" option included as well. IE, "Vote yes," Vote no," and "Castrate me" would be listed.
The problem I see is that Malcolm would make every button activate the castration function. The man would hear "How dare you question the wisdom of Malcolm!" and hear a toilet flushing sound as his genitles were deposided into a container.
Yeah, but after the first election, you need to worry about courting the "eunich vote" which has nothing left to lose.Paul wrote:Here's my proposal for when Malcolm rules the world.
1) A man enters the private booth.
2) Said my places said genitles in the "castrator 5000" device.
3) Man given opportunity to select various things, but each has the "castrate me" option included as well. IE, "Vote yes," Vote no," and "Castrate me" would be listed.
The problem I see is that Malcolm would make every button activate the castration function. The man would hear "How dare you question the wisdom of Malcolm!" and hear a toilet flushing sound as his genitles were deposided into a container.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I dont' like that for two reasons. First, I like that the electoral system is dtate oriented because I'm a big fan of state's rights. I want us to keep looking at those state boundaries, and being aware of how we can choose to have differences amongst the states if we can get the feds to back the hell off. Also it's nice because it gives smaller states a little bit of a leg up against the larger states, which they kind of need IMO.mbilderback wrote:TheCatt wrote:No, but I wouldn't mind a little electoral college reform to make it reflect the composition of the country more closely.
Ok, wrong. Lets get one thing straight. Abstracting something does two things, it 1 makes it easier to understand and quicker to compile, and 2 looses specificity. For a true representation, you MUST have a popular vote. Erase state lines when it comes to federal elections. 1 vote, 1 person.
Secondly, a popular vote is dull. There'd be even less for the talking heads to discuss than there is now, and they're already having to fill dead air with bullshit as it is. I want to see something to keep them busy talking at all times.
I wish every state did what Maine does. Each representative disctrict is one electoral vote, and the total population of the state caries the two at-large votes with it. That would have the advantage of making each electoral vote more personal (and thus giving people more of a feel of being involved, since they can point to the vote for their district, and they can fight for that one vote in a way they can't in the current system or if it were just a popular vote). It would also keep the talking heads hella-busy, as they'd have 438 different areas to discuss instead of 50.
I can't see a downside to it.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
