Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Your vote matters, but should it?

Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 5:43:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
If we were to create in our minds an ideal structure for society then, assuming we decide on a democracy or a republic, what should determine whether a person living in this society should be permitted by the government to vote? This question will be the subject of this post so please answer it to yourself before continuing.

Now, if you answered 'the number of years ago they were conceived' to the above question, you are in agreement with the policies of most nations in the free world today. I doubt that many of you would describe any of these societies as ideal, however. For those of you that agree with the modern nations of the world on this one thing, consider the fact that both you and they delegate ultimate authority to the same group of people (i.e. over three fourths of the population).

In a democracy voting is the ultimate authority, and it's pretty high up on the list of authorities in a republic as well. If you place ultimate authority in the hands of the same group of people you are bound to get similar if not the same results. So if you want different results (which you do if you don't consider modern societies to be ideal) then you must either change the fact that voting is the ultimate authority (we began with the assumption that we were creating a democracy or republic, so this is not an option) or make a change to how we decide where to place that ultimate authority.

About one third of you are thinking at this point that the best answer to the opening question is something along the lines of 'the most intelligent/educated/etc', while the other two thirds are thinking to yourself that I am a fascist, racist, Nazi scumbag. Well, you're both wrong. What I have next likely won't change the minds of the second group, but it may affect the first group (probably by making them nod in agreement with the second group but I'm okay with that.)

I mentioned just a moment ago that to vote is to wield the ultimate authority. Authority in this context is a measure of a persons ability to make changes to the policies of our ideal societies government. So now we come to the part where I give my answer to my question. What quality or qualities should be looked for to qualify a person to wield the authority of the vote?

I say the defining characteristic of a person permitted to vote in a society which deserves the label of 'ideal' are those who have proven that they will vote responsibly, meaning that they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote in favor of or against a political policy. The privilege of voting should never be something that is given. Things that are given will never have as much value to an honest and selfless person than things that are earned.

Limiting the vote to those who have proven that they are willing to put the whole before themselves eliminates the need to worry about the millions across the world who look upon the choices they are presented in ballot and ask what can my country do for me

This has been a short post, but I enjoyed writing it. Like my posts threads I have made in the philosophy forum in the past my goals are to stimulate discussion, present new ways of looking at old ideas, and evaluate how receptive the DDO community is to various ideas. (Although like I said I already know that the response to this particular thread will be primarily pseudo-intelectuals advocating Geniocracy and angry mobs comparing me to Hitler)

-To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:13:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 5:43:25 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
If we were to create in our minds an ideal structure for society then, assuming we decide on a democracy or a republic, what should determine whether a person living in this society should be permitted by the government to vote? This question will be the subject of this post so please answer it to yourself before continuing.

Now, if you answered 'the number of years ago they were conceived' to the above question, you are in agreement with the policies of most nations in the free world today. I doubt that many of you would describe any of these societies as ideal, however. For those of you that agree with the modern nations of the world on this one thing, consider the fact that both you and they delegate ultimate authority to the same group of people (i.e. over three fourths of the population).

In a democracy voting is the ultimate authority, and it's pretty high up on the list of authorities in a republic as well. If you place ultimate authority in the hands of the same group of people you are bound to get similar if not the same results. So if you want different results (which you do if you don't consider modern societies to be ideal) then you must either change the fact that voting is the ultimate authority (we began with the assumption that we were creating a democracy or republic, so this is not an option) or make a change to how we decide where to place that ultimate authority.

About one third of you are thinking at this point that the best answer to the opening question is something along the lines of 'the most intelligent/educated/etc', while the other two thirds are thinking to yourself that I am a fascist, racist, Nazi scumbag. Well, you're both wrong. What I have next likely won't change the minds of the second group, but it may affect the first group (probably by making them nod in agreement with the second group but I'm okay with that.)

I mentioned just a moment ago that to vote is to wield the ultimate authority. Authority in this context is a measure of a persons ability to make changes to the policies of our ideal societies government. So now we come to the part where I give my answer to my question. What quality or qualities should be looked for to qualify a person to wield the authority of the vote?

I say the defining characteristic of a person permitted to vote in a society which deserves the label of 'ideal' are those who have proven that they will vote responsibly, meaning that they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote in favor of or against a political policy. The privilege of voting should never be something that is given. Things that are given will never have as much value to an honest and selfless person than things that are earned.

Limiting the vote to those who have proven that they are willing to put the whole before themselves eliminates the need to worry about the millions across the world who look upon the choices they are presented in ballot and ask what can my country do for me

This has been a short post, but I enjoyed writing it. Like my posts threads I have made in the philosophy forum in the past my goals are to stimulate discussion, present new ways of looking at old ideas, and evaluate how receptive the DDO community is to various ideas. (Although like I said I already know that the response to this particular thread will be primarily pseudo-intelectuals advocating Geniocracy and angry mobs comparing me to Hitler)


-To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.

The three idea's that I like the sort of like the idea of at first glance in terms of a "perfect world", but I know have major issues when it comes to actually implementing and the consequences of them:

1.) Replacing some, or a proportion of elected positions (specifically legislative) in the same way you would appoint people on jury duty.

2.) Voting is not automatic, but earned based on various contributions (volunteering, military service).

3.) Unequal voting weights: teachers, doctors, the military, firefighters, volunteers, and other people doing more vocational services to society and are, in some ways, on the front line of society have votes that have more weight than a regular person.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:22:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 5:43:25 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
If we were to create in our minds an ideal structure for society then, assuming we decide on a democracy or a republic, what should determine whether a person living in this society should be permitted by the government to vote? This question will be the subject of this post so please answer it to yourself before continuing.

Now, if you answered 'the number of years ago they were conceived' to the above question, you are in agreement with the policies of most nations in the free world today. I doubt that many of you would describe any of these societies as ideal, however. For those of you that agree with the modern nations of the world on this one thing, consider the fact that both you and they delegate ultimate authority to the same group of people (i.e. over three fourths of the population).

In a democracy voting is the ultimate authority, and it's pretty high up on the list of authorities in a republic as well. If you place ultimate authority in the hands of the same group of people you are bound to get similar if not the same results. So if you want different results (which you do if you don't consider modern societies to be ideal) then you must either change the fact that voting is the ultimate authority (we began with the assumption that we were creating a democracy or republic, so this is not an option) or make a change to how we decide where to place that ultimate authority.

About one third of you are thinking at this point that the best answer to the opening question is something along the lines of 'the most intelligent/educated/etc', while the other two thirds are thinking to yourself that I am a fascist, racist, Nazi scumbag. Well, you're both wrong. What I have next likely won't change the minds of the second group, but it may affect the first group (probably by making them nod in agreement with the second group but I'm okay with that.)

I mentioned just a moment ago that to vote is to wield the ultimate authority. Authority in this context is a measure of a persons ability to make changes to the policies of our ideal societies government. So now we come to the part where I give my answer to my question. What quality or qualities should be looked for to qualify a person to wield the authority of the vote?

I say the defining characteristic of a person permitted to vote in a society which deserves the label of 'ideal' are those who have proven that they will vote responsibly, meaning that they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote in favor of or against a political policy. The privilege of voting should never be something that is given. Things that are given will never have as much value to an honest and selfless person than things that are earned.

Limiting the vote to those who have proven that they are willing to put the whole before themselves eliminates the need to worry about the millions across the world who look upon the choices they are presented in ballot and ask what can my country do for me

This has been a short post, but I enjoyed writing it. Like my posts threads I have made in the philosophy forum in the past my goals are to stimulate discussion, present new ways of looking at old ideas, and evaluate how receptive the DDO community is to various ideas. (Although like I said I already know that the response to this particular thread will be primarily pseudo-intelectuals advocating Geniocracy and angry mobs comparing me to Hitler)


-To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.

It's not a bad idea. I think the contentions would be around what earning the privilege entails. You're basically asking people to demonstrate that they're willing to vote against their own immediate self-interest in favor of some greater good. So how does someone do that? Military service? Philanthropy? I can agree that simply being an 18+ citizen probably shouldn't be the only qualification. But what would be your idea of a minimum qualification, specifically?

While I think adding some additional requirements would be an improvement, any benefit from this change would probably still be minor. Humans are good at rationalizing. It's pretty easy to take an idea that is blatantly in your own interest and think about it in some way that makes it seem like a net benefit for society. History is rife with examples. Just look at either side of a welfare debate to see how each group spins it.

Too often it seems high-minded folks think that society is broken because the dumb, ignorant masses have too much control. But every one of us is dumb and/or ignorant about a number of political topics. You might be able to weed out people for whom that list is longer than others, but it won't have as dramatic an impact as you probably expect.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:44:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:22:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
It's not a bad idea. I think the contentions would be around what earning the privilege entails. You're basically asking people to demonstrate that they're willing to vote against their own immediate self-interest in favor of some greater good. So how does someone do that? Military service? Philanthropy? I can agree that simply being an 18+ citizen probably shouldn't be the only qualification. But what would be your idea of a minimum qualification, specifically?

Some sort of unpleasent but necessary public service, not limited to the military, is the first thing I thought of. It is certainly a point I would be open to suggestions on, which is part of the reason I left that particular detail intentionally vague.

While I think adding some additional requirements would be an improvement, any benefit from this change would probably still be minor. Humans are good at rationalizing. It's pretty easy to take an idea that is blatantly in your own interest and think about it in some way that makes it seem like a net benefit for society. History is rife with examples. Just look at either side of a welfare debate to see how each group spins it.

Too often it seems high-minded folks think that society is broken because the dumb, ignorant masses have too much control. But every one of us is dumb and/or ignorant about a number of political topics. You might be able to weed out people for whom that list is longer than others, but it won't have as dramatic an impact as you probably expect.

It seems you may share my low opinion of the Geniocracy concept though ;)
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:46:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:35:52 PM, Death23 wrote:
Sounds like the plan is to disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you. This defeats the purpose of voting.

It certainly would, if it were true. What makes you think that it is?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:47:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 5:43:25 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
If we were to create in our minds an ideal structure for society then, assuming we decide on a democracy or a republic, what should determine whether a person living in this society should be permitted by the government to vote? This question will be the subject of this post so please answer it to yourself before continuing.

Now, if you answered 'the number of years ago they were conceived' to the above question, you are in agreement with the policies of most nations in the free world today. I doubt that many of you would describe any of these societies as ideal, however. For those of you that agree with the modern nations of the world on this one thing, consider the fact that both you and they delegate ultimate authority to the same group of people (i.e. over three fourths of the population).

In a democracy voting is the ultimate authority, and it's pretty high up on the list of authorities in a republic as well. If you place ultimate authority in the hands of the same group of people you are bound to get similar if not the same results. So if you want different results (which you do if you don't consider modern societies to be ideal) then you must either change the fact that voting is the ultimate authority (we began with the assumption that we were creating a democracy or republic, so this is not an option) or make a change to how we decide where to place that ultimate authority.

About one third of you are thinking at this point that the best answer to the opening question is something along the lines of 'the most intelligent/educated/etc', while the other two thirds are thinking to yourself that I am a fascist, racist, Nazi scumbag. Well, you're both wrong. What I have next likely won't change the minds of the second group, but it may affect the first group (probably by making them nod in agreement with the second group but I'm okay with that.)

I mentioned just a moment ago that to vote is to wield the ultimate authority. Authority in this context is a measure of a persons ability to make changes to the policies of our ideal societies government. So now we come to the part where I give my answer to my question. What quality or qualities should be looked for to qualify a person to wield the authority of the vote?

I say the defining characteristic of a person permitted to vote in a society which deserves the label of 'ideal' are those who have proven that they will vote responsibly, meaning that they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote in favor of or against a political policy. The privilege of voting should never be something that is given. Things that are given will never have as much value to an honest and selfless person than things that are earned.

Limiting the vote to those who have proven that they are willing to put the whole before themselves eliminates the need to worry about the millions across the world who look upon the choices they are presented in ballot and ask what can my country do for me

This has been a short post, but I enjoyed writing it. Like my posts threads I have made in the philosophy forum in the past my goals are to stimulate discussion, present new ways of looking at old ideas, and evaluate how receptive the DDO community is to various ideas. (Although like I said I already know that the response to this particular thread will be primarily pseudo-intelectuals advocating Geniocracy and angry mobs comparing me to Hitler)


-To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.

Quit comparing America to Utopia. Compared to actual real societies on planet Earth, America lapped all other cultures. Quit looking for flaws in diamonds and be glad you got a diamond at all rather than the dried cow sh*t that most of Earth looks at every day. You ungrateful bastard...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:52:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:47:13 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Quit comparing America to Utopia. Compared to actual real societies on planet Earth, America lapped all other cultures. Quit looking for flaws in diamonds and be glad you got a diamond at all rather than the dried cow sh*t that most of Earth looks at every day. You ungrateful bastard...

Semper Fi
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:02:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:52:41 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:47:13 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Quit comparing America to Utopia. Compared to actual real societies on planet Earth, America lapped all other cultures. Quit looking for flaws in diamonds and be glad you got a diamond at all rather than the dried cow sh*t that most of Earth looks at every day. You ungrateful bastard...

Semper Fi

I fought in the first gulf war. All I see are ignorant Americans living on an island oblivious to reality on any other part of Earth. Iraq? Sucks...been there. Done that. It plain fuc*ing sucks. The Middle East is the literal threshild of hell.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:08:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Okay, not the fascist accusation I was looking forward to but quality feedback nonetheless. Anyone else?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:09:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:46:41 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:35:52 PM, Death23 wrote:
Sounds like the plan is to disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you. This defeats the purpose of voting.

It certainly would, if it were true. What makes you think that it is?

Because the plan restricts voting to "those who have proven that [...] they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote". The disagreement among those who vote according to that principle is limited to a mere factual inquiry, effectively turning the electorate in to a jury voting according to this instruction. So long as the facts are clear, everyone would vote the same way.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:17:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 7:09:28 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:46:41 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:35:52 PM, Death23 wrote:
Sounds like the plan is to disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you. This defeats the purpose of voting.

It certainly would, if it were true. What makes you think that it is?

Because the plan restricts voting to "those who have proven that [...] they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote". The disagreement among those who vote according to that principle is limited to a mere factual inquiry, effectively turning the electorate in to a jury voting according to this instruction. So long as the facts are clear, everyone would vote the same way.

Different well-meaning people can have different ideas of how society should be run, the idea is to seperate out the not-so-well-meaning influences such as selfishness and laziness.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:25:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 7:09:41 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
How would it be limited? I could see no way in which a limited electorate would work.

Unlimited electorates (electorates limited only by age) are relatively recent. Previously limited electorates used moronic requirements such gender, but they produced stable societies.

As for how exactly a society would decide between those who were or were not responsible enough to vote, I mentioned some ideas above but ultimately that was something I was looking for feedback on from others.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:29:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Speaking of feedback, only an hour and a half in so maybe too early to say but there have been five different people posting and only one was blindly throwing insults at me. It is possible that I underestimated DDO - I expected this ratio to be about three in five.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:41:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 7:25:12 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:09:41 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
How would it be limited? I could see no way in which a limited electorate would work.

Unlimited electorates (electorates limited only by age) are relatively recent. Previously limited electorates used moronic requirements such gender, but they produced stable societies.

As for how exactly a society would decide between those who were or were not responsible enough to vote, I mentioned some ideas above but ultimately that was something I was looking for feedback on from others.

My problem is that each idea is fraught with issues.

Limit the population too much and you open it up to fraud and corruption, not the mention a lack of representation.

Make the limits too free and there is little point to them in the first place, only targeting a minority of individuals who will feel wronged by these limits that do not affect the majority.

Target only those with important jobs in society and the ones who had no opportunities to get those jobs would feel wronged and targeted simply because they're poor / whatever.

Limit it to having a job and you remove students and the unemployed, unless a job can be full time student. You would still be rid of the unemployed, a significant part of the population.

I think you get the idea. Certain people getting the privilege of voting always rubs me the wrong way, and it is wrong to say that any one person "knows better" than someone else and should be given the right to vote over them. The only way I could ever see this working is with a test, similar to a test you get for citizenship, to show you at least have a basic understanding of the workings of the country.

Even then I don't particularly like it. Why should the educated have any more say over the ill educated just because they can remember more facts? It is their right to vote even if they don't particularly know what they're voting for.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:03:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Voting is supposed to be simple, so keep it simple. If you are 18, you get to vote.

If you give a bonus vote or votes to teachers, for example, then schools are only going to hire teachers that have similar political beliefs.

Minimize fraud and corruption, keep it simple.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:12:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 7:41:21 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:25:12 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:09:41 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
How would it be limited? I could see no way in which a limited electorate would work.

Unlimited electorates (electorates limited only by age) are relatively recent. Previously limited electorates used moronic requirements such gender, but they produced stable societies.

As for how exactly a society would decide between those who were or were not responsible enough to vote, I mentioned some ideas above but ultimately that was something I was looking for feedback on from others.

My problem is that each idea is fraught with issues.

Limit the population too much and you open it up to fraud and corruption, not the mention a lack of representation.

Make the limits too free and there is little point to them in the first place, only targeting a minority of individuals who will feel wronged by these limits that do not affect the majority.

Target only those with important jobs in society and the ones who had no opportunities to get those jobs would feel wronged and targeted simply because they're poor / whatever.

Limit it to having a job and you remove students and the unemployed, unless a job can be full time student. You would still be rid of the unemployed, a significant part of the population.

I think you get the idea. Certain people getting the privilege of voting always rubs me the wrong way, and it is wrong to say that any one person "knows better" than someone else and should be given the right to vote over them. The only way I could ever see this working is with a test, similar to a test you get for citizenship, to show you at least have a basic understanding of the workings of the country.

Even then I don't particularly like it. Why should the educated have any more say over the ill educated just because they can remember more facts? It is their right to vote even if they don't particularly know what they're voting for.

I think you could probably create a list of requirements, of which a voter only has to fulfill one or two, and it would be pretty fair. For instance, the list could be the following:
-two years military service
-5000 hours of volunteer service
-two years of employment as a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or healthcare worker

Then anyone who qualifies under one of those could vote. That list could be expanded to include anything that might imbue the voter with a sense of duty to country and society. As far as I know, this doesn't lock anyone out of voting, but rather encourages engagement in society in order to be part of the "ultimate authority" in government. By the way, I would not qualify to vote in this scenario, with that list. Something like this would definitely encourage me to start volunteering more.
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:14:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:41:21 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:25:12 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:09:41 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
How would it be limited? I could see no way in which a limited electorate would work.

Unlimited electorates (electorates limited only by age) are relatively recent. Previously limited electorates used moronic requirements such gender, but they produced stable societies.

As for how exactly a society would decide between those who were or were not responsible enough to vote, I mentioned some ideas above but ultimately that was something I was looking for feedback on from others.

My problem is that each idea is fraught with issues.

Limit the population too much and you open it up to fraud and corruption, not the mention a lack of representation.

Make the limits too free and there is little point to them in the first place, only targeting a minority of individuals who will feel wronged by these limits that do not affect the majority.

Target only those with important jobs in society and the ones who had no opportunities to get those jobs would feel wronged and targeted simply because they're poor / whatever.

Limit it to having a job and you remove students and the unemployed, unless a job can be full time student. You would still be rid of the unemployed, a significant part of the population.

I think you get the idea. Certain people getting the privilege of voting always rubs me the wrong way, and it is wrong to say that any one person "knows better" than someone else and should be given the right to vote over them. The only way I could ever see this working is with a test, similar to a test you get for citizenship, to show you at least have a basic understanding of the workings of the country.

Even then I don't particularly like it. Why should the educated have any more say over the ill educated just because they can remember more facts? It is their right to vote even if they don't particularly know what they're voting for.

I think you could probably create a list of requirements, of which a voter only has to fulfill one or two, and it would be pretty fair. For instance, the list could be the following:
-two years military service
-5000 hours of volunteer service
-two years of employment as a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or healthcare worker

Then anyone who qualifies under one of those could vote. That list could be expanded to include anything that might imbue the voter with a sense of duty to country and society. As far as I know, this doesn't lock anyone out of voting, but rather encourages engagement in society in order to be part of the "ultimate authority" in government. By the way, I would not qualify to vote in this scenario, with that list. Something like this would definitely encourage me to start volunteering more.

I'm not sure how any of those requirements somehow makes you more capable of voting than an average person.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:20:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:14:13 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:41:21 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:25:12 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:09:41 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
How would it be limited? I could see no way in which a limited electorate would work.

Unlimited electorates (electorates limited only by age) are relatively recent. Previously limited electorates used moronic requirements such gender, but they produced stable societies.

As for how exactly a society would decide between those who were or were not responsible enough to vote, I mentioned some ideas above but ultimately that was something I was looking for feedback on from others.

My problem is that each idea is fraught with issues.

Limit the population too much and you open it up to fraud and corruption, not the mention a lack of representation.

Make the limits too free and there is little point to them in the first place, only targeting a minority of individuals who will feel wronged by these limits that do not affect the majority.

Target only those with important jobs in society and the ones who had no opportunities to get those jobs would feel wronged and targeted simply because they're poor / whatever.

Limit it to having a job and you remove students and the unemployed, unless a job can be full time student. You would still be rid of the unemployed, a significant part of the population.

I think you get the idea. Certain people getting the privilege of voting always rubs me the wrong way, and it is wrong to say that any one person "knows better" than someone else and should be given the right to vote over them. The only way I could ever see this working is with a test, similar to a test you get for citizenship, to show you at least have a basic understanding of the workings of the country.

Even then I don't particularly like it. Why should the educated have any more say over the ill educated just because they can remember more facts? It is their right to vote even if they don't particularly know what they're voting for.

I think you could probably create a list of requirements, of which a voter only has to fulfill one or two, and it would be pretty fair. For instance, the list could be the following:
-two years military service
-5000 hours of volunteer service
-two years of employment as a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or healthcare worker

Then anyone who qualifies under one of those could vote. That list could be expanded to include anything that might imbue the voter with a sense of duty to country and society. As far as I know, this doesn't lock anyone out of voting, but rather encourages engagement in society in order to be part of the "ultimate authority" in government. By the way, I would not qualify to vote in this scenario, with that list. Something like this would definitely encourage me to start volunteering more.

I'm not sure how any of those requirements somehow makes you more capable of voting than an average person.

It doesn't make anyone more capable of voting, in the simplest sense. What I'd expect those requirements to do is endear people to their country and community. With that mindset, folks should be more likely to vote in the interest of the whole rather than solely for themselves.
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:33:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:20:37 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:14:13 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:41:21 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:25:12 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:09:41 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
How would it be limited? I could see no way in which a limited electorate would work.

Unlimited electorates (electorates limited only by age) are relatively recent. Previously limited electorates used moronic requirements such gender, but they produced stable societies.

As for how exactly a society would decide between those who were or were not responsible enough to vote, I mentioned some ideas above but ultimately that was something I was looking for feedback on from others.

My problem is that each idea is fraught with issues.

Limit the population too much and you open it up to fraud and corruption, not the mention a lack of representation.

Make the limits too free and there is little point to them in the first place, only targeting a minority of individuals who will feel wronged by these limits that do not affect the majority.

Target only those with important jobs in society and the ones who had no opportunities to get those jobs would feel wronged and targeted simply because they're poor / whatever.

Limit it to having a job and you remove students and the unemployed, unless a job can be full time student. You would still be rid of the unemployed, a significant part of the population.

I think you get the idea. Certain people getting the privilege of voting always rubs me the wrong way, and it is wrong to say that any one person "knows better" than someone else and should be given the right to vote over them. The only way I could ever see this working is with a test, similar to a test you get for citizenship, to show you at least have a basic understanding of the workings of the country.

Even then I don't particularly like it. Why should the educated have any more say over the ill educated just because they can remember more facts? It is their right to vote even if they don't particularly know what they're voting for.

I think you could probably create a list of requirements, of which a voter only has to fulfill one or two, and it would be pretty fair. For instance, the list could be the following:
-two years military service
-5000 hours of volunteer service
-two years of employment as a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or healthcare worker

Then anyone who qualifies under one of those could vote. That list could be expanded to include anything that might imbue the voter with a sense of duty to country and society. As far as I know, this doesn't lock anyone out of voting, but rather encourages engagement in society in order to be part of the "ultimate authority" in government. By the way, I would not qualify to vote in this scenario, with that list. Something like this would definitely encourage me to start volunteering more.

I'm not sure how any of those requirements somehow makes you more capable of voting than an average person.

It doesn't make anyone more capable of voting, in the simplest sense. What I'd expect those requirements to do is endear people to their country and community. With that mindset, folks should be more likely to vote in the interest of the whole rather than solely for themselves.

Surely they could be endeared to their country and community without having to be in the military or be one of the jobs you mentioned. Why is this even a trait that could assist in your country. Do you have to love your country in order to make the rich choice for president?

I'm not even sure how that mindset would mean they're more likely to vote in the interest of the whole. Humans are selfish, even the biggest bleeding heart. And everyone has their biases. Those who have served in the military are far more likely to vote republican as well as cops and likely firefighters.

At the end of the day, a healthcare worker will vote for the one who gives them healthcare funding, while the soldier will vote for the one who will fund the military more. Of course this is probably being too simplistic, but i bet i'm on the right lines. Why these people are chosen to be the arbiter of voting I don't know. Their decisions IMO would be no more impartial than voting now.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:01:27 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 7:17:22 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:09:28 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:46:41 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:35:52 PM, Death23 wrote:
Sounds like the plan is to disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you. This defeats the purpose of voting.

It certainly would, if it were true. What makes you think that it is?

Because the plan restricts voting to "those who have proven that [...] they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote". The disagreement among those who vote according to that principle is limited to a mere factual inquiry, effectively turning the electorate in to a jury voting according to this instruction. So long as the facts are clear, everyone would vote the same way.

Different well-meaning people can have different ideas of how society should be run, the idea is to seperate out the not-so-well-meaning influences such as selfishness and laziness.

I suspect that the purpose of the plan is to disenfranchise minority voting blocks by considering only those votes which are guided by the interests of a pre-defined group - A nation at large. This is great for the majority in whatever nation the plan is implemented in, but it sucks for minorities. This is not ideal, and it isn't even an improvement.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:46:23 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:33:27 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:20:37 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:14:13 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:41:21 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:25:12 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:09:41 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
How would it be limited? I could see no way in which a limited electorate would work.

Unlimited electorates (electorates limited only by age) are relatively recent. Previously limited electorates used moronic requirements such gender, but they produced stable societies.

As for how exactly a society would decide between those who were or were not responsible enough to vote, I mentioned some ideas above but ultimately that was something I was looking for feedback on from others.

My problem is that each idea is fraught with issues.

Limit the population too much and you open it up to fraud and corruption, not the mention a lack of representation.

Make the limits too free and there is little point to them in the first place, only targeting a minority of individuals who will feel wronged by these limits that do not affect the majority.

Target only those with important jobs in society and the ones who had no opportunities to get those jobs would feel wronged and targeted simply because they're poor / whatever.

Limit it to having a job and you remove students and the unemployed, unless a job can be full time student. You would still be rid of the unemployed, a significant part of the population.

I think you get the idea. Certain people getting the privilege of voting always rubs me the wrong way, and it is wrong to say that any one person "knows better" than someone else and should be given the right to vote over them. The only way I could ever see this working is with a test, similar to a test you get for citizenship, to show you at least have a basic understanding of the workings of the country.

Even then I don't particularly like it. Why should the educated have any more say over the ill educated just because they can remember more facts? It is their right to vote even if they don't particularly know what they're voting for.

I think you could probably create a list of requirements, of which a voter only has to fulfill one or two, and it would be pretty fair. For instance, the list could be the following:
-two years military service
-5000 hours of volunteer service
-two years of employment as a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or healthcare worker

Then anyone who qualifies under one of those could vote. That list could be expanded to include anything that might imbue the voter with a sense of duty to country and society. As far as I know, this doesn't lock anyone out of voting, but rather encourages engagement in society in order to be part of the "ultimate authority" in government. By the way, I would not qualify to vote in this scenario, with that list. Something like this would definitely encourage me to start volunteering more.

I'm not sure how any of those requirements somehow makes you more capable of voting than an average person.

It doesn't make anyone more capable of voting, in the simplest sense. What I'd expect those requirements to do is endear people to their country and community. With that mindset, folks should be more likely to vote in the interest of the whole rather than solely for themselves.

Surely they could be endeared to their country and community without having to be in the military or be one of the jobs you mentioned. Why is this even a trait that could assist in your country. Do you have to love your country in order to make the rich choice for president?

I'm not even sure how that mindset would mean they're more likely to vote in the interest of the whole. Humans are selfish, even the biggest bleeding heart. And everyone has their biases. Those who have served in the military are far more likely to vote republican as well as cops and likely firefighters.

At the end of the day, a healthcare worker will vote for the one who gives them healthcare funding, while the soldier will vote for the one who will fund the military more. Of course this is probably being too simplistic, but i bet i'm on the right lines. Why these people are chosen to be the arbiter of voting I don't know. Their decisions IMO would be no more impartial than voting now.

Someone who serves his community or country in some fashion is more likely to be concerned about the well being of that community or country than someone who doesn't. Do you agree or disagree with that idea?
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:39:56 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:01:27 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:17:22 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Different well-meaning people can have different ideas of how society should be run, the idea is to seperate out the not-so-well-meaning influences such as selfishness and laziness.

I suspect that the purpose of the plan is to disenfranchise minority voting blocks by considering only those votes which are guided by the interests of a pre-defined group - A nation at large. This is great for the majority in whatever nation the plan is implemented in, but it sucks for minorities. This is not ideal, and it isn't even an improvement.

When did minorities become excluded from public services and volunteer work?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:46:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 5:43:25 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
If we were to create in our minds an ideal structure for society then, assuming we decide on a democracy or a republic, what should determine whether a person living in this society should be permitted by the government to vote? This question will be the subject of this post so please answer it to yourself before continuing.
Nationality at minimum.

Limiting the vote to those who have proven that they are willing to put the whole before themselves eliminates the need to worry about the millions across the world who look upon the choices they are presented in ballot and ask what can my country do for me
How would they prove as much?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:48:44 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:47:13 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Quit comparing America to Utopia. Compared to actual real societies on planet Earth, America lapped all other cultures.
Easily the most absurd, out of touch thing bronto has said during his entire

The US is among the worst countries in the developed world.

Quit looking for flaws in diamonds and be glad you got a diamond at all rather than the dried cow sh*t that most of Earth looks at every day. You ungrateful bastard...
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:49:08 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 7:41:21 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
My problem is that each idea is fraught with issues.

Limit the population too much and you open it up to fraud and corruption, not the mention a lack of representation.

Make the limits too free and there is little point to them in the first place, only targeting a minority of individuals who will feel wronged by these limits that do not affect the majority.

Target only those with important jobs in society and the ones who had no opportunities to get those jobs would feel wronged and targeted simply because they're poor / whatever.

Limit it to having a job and you remove students and the unemployed, unless a job can be full time student. You would still be rid of the unemployed, a significant part of the population.

So it should be something which everyone has an opportunity to earn. I agree, which is why I proposed a term of public service earning the ability to vote. Everyone could have a chance at public service.

I think you get the idea. Certain people getting the privilege of voting always rubs me the wrong way, and it is wrong to say that any one person "knows better" than someone else and should be given the right to vote over them. The only way I could ever see this working is with a test, similar to a test you get for citizenship, to show you at least have a basic understanding of the workings of the country.

I don't like that one. Sounds too much like Geniocracy to me.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:50:11 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:48:44 AM, someloser wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:47:13 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Quit comparing America to Utopia. Compared to actual real societies on planet Earth, America lapped all other cultures.
Easily the most absurd, out of touch thing bronto has said during his entire

The US is among the worst countries in the developed world.

Quit looking for flaws in diamonds and be glad you got a diamond at all rather than the dried cow sh*t that most of Earth looks at every day. You ungrateful bastard...

Good for you. Anything to say that is relevant to the thread?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:51:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:50:11 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Good for you. Anything to say that is relevant to the thread?
Already left an answer and asked a question.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:35:46 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 4:39:56 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:01:27 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 7:17:22 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Different well-meaning people can have different ideas of how society should be run, the idea is to seperate out the not-so-well-meaning influences such as selfishness and laziness.

I suspect that the purpose of the plan is to disenfranchise minority voting blocks by considering only those votes which are guided by the interests of a pre-defined group - A nation at large. This is great for the majority in whatever nation the plan is implemented in, but it sucks for minorities. This is not ideal, and it isn't even an improvement.

When did minorities become excluded from public services and volunteer work?

Your OP states that the plan is to restrict voting to "those who have proven that [..] they are willing to take the needs of the society as a whole into consideration above all other concerns when casting their vote". Your OP does not indicate what forms of evidence would be acceptable. Public service does not prove the requirement, and the requirement doesn't, on its face, seem to have much to do with disenfranchising the lazy or selfish. If that were the objective, then the proposal should merely have been to disenfranchise the lazy and/or selfish. Though, I don't see what purpose would be furthered by doing so.

Here's the issue that irks me most: The emphasis on "the needs of the society as a whole". That's not how people vote. People have group identities other than their citizenship. There's nothing selfish or lazy about that. Blacks have voted as a block for decades because they know that that's the party that's going to look out for them. Many are not considering "society as a whole" when they walk in to the ballot box; They're considering the interests of the group with which they identify most strongly. That type of voting would be prohibited under this plan, and that type of voting tends to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.