difference between a corrupt democracy and aristocracy?

Goofs said:
yeah but direct democracy isn't practical for a modern nation with millions of people

Goofs said:
yeah but direct democracy isn't practical for a modern nation with millions of people

Goofs said:
in this case, the people being the minority who controls the winning party that made empty promises for everyone to vote for them, lol

Goofs said:
not even majority rule is practical. without representatives, every matter of state needs to be voted on. the resources to do that for as many people are in the US would be too high to justify it. think of all that goes into the presidential elections alone

traed said:

You use digital voting. Im more so talking about at least removal of the electoral college in the US though.

Red_Hill said:
Good arguments on MAL today

PoruMairu said:


Exactly. We in the West are indeed that lazy-minded. That is the sum total of our apathy. When we throw our faith out the window, there is nothing left to fight for.

Ozul said:


True. It's remarkable how undemocratic the electoral college is.

Goofs said:
so, everyone gets an iPhone app? lmao, what happens if a hacker manipulates the vote and no one notices before it's too late? it's too easy to subvert if everyone's using one app to vote. at least with the modern system the digital vote is somewhat decentralized

Goofs said:
that already happens today though for presidential elections, and it costs a lot of money..

Goofs said:
all it takes to win a majority in a vote is 51%. if that 51% is made up of multiple groups allied together, they'll defer to what the bigger group wants, so that's 25.5% assuming the biggest group is half of the 51%. you can keep splitting this down and eventually you have what looks like a tiny group of people with all the effective power.

Goofs said:
maybe you're misunderstanding something because everyone else seems to understand it well enough

dakotasapphire said:
There's a thing called an electoral college. Fortunately our country isn't pure democracy, it's a republic democracy. If it were pure democracy we'd be in trouble. The majority doesn't always have the right answer. That's a silly way to look at the world.

Democracy hasn't much to do with the class system we ended up having, but class systems always seem to happen in every country no matter what you do. And socialism isn't an exception, there are still elites in socialism. (socialism fking sucks tho) The class system has all to do with economics. If we didn't buy their products they wouldn't be ruling us like the evil money hogs they are.

traed said:

All you have to do is limit a persons voting power. It already is limited by age. Instead of limiting by age it could be limited by IQ, or limited by how much it would effect a particular individual or limited to those who pass a political competency test for that particular subject. Also because of peoples larger involvement it would make them more politically competent.

dakotasapphire said:


IQ is stupid, in many ways because majority of people have an IQ of 95 (ish) and making it impossible for them to vote wouldn't be fair. The IQ test, isn't really accurate anyways, you have got to be kidding me. The mind works in mysterious ways. If they could just study and take time to vote, than their opinion matters. Why we have an electoral college (even though the real system needs so much more work. ) Not IQ necessarily, a diplomatic standpoint. Like say, someone cares about how everyone feels but will be stern when they need to. If there was a political competency test, it should be based solely around the constitution and knowing the rights of the people. Also, knowing the county's history. You shouldn't get to vote if you're not a citizen born or just raised fully there (if it's not just the usa, it could be australia or canada with the same government types/really similar ones).

traed said:


No, majority of people have IQ of 100. 100 represents the average IQ and is always adjusted ever so often. Unless you mean just for the US. I know IQ isnt perfect but it's just an example of a measurement. A more accurate measurement is a type of brain scan. Having an age put on voting isn't fair but you seem fine with that. The electoral college is only in the US. Other countries dont do that shit. They use popular vote. You can't say you support democracy while supporting the electoral college. You can't say putting a limit to weed out the most incompetent voters isnt fair but having someone else vote for them against their wishes is fair. The constitution is not some holy book. The founding fathers were not prophets. They didn't account for all the things we have now. They didn't even want anyone who wasn't a land owner to vote. There needs to be a more inclusive and more modern constitution. Why do you not want immigrants to vote? The laws and economic policies effect them too. That is just marginalizing them even if they first came here as infants. I don't mean a purely direct democracy since without central figures it is difficult to keep track of things and would function too much like an anarchist territory but im talking more a semi direct democracy that has legislation written by scientists and psychologists and philosophers.

traed said:

All you have to do is limit a persons voting power. It already is limited by age. Instead of limiting by age it could be limited by IQ, or limited by how much it would effect a particular individual or limited to those who pass a political competency test for that particular subject. Also because of peoples larger involvement it would make them more politically competent.

katsucats said:
This is the dumbest idea. Have you not read even one US history book?

traed said:
@dakotasapphire
The US has an IQ of 98 average last I checked. What good is a constitution if it can be edited? That protects nothing.. It has to be unable to be edited except for unforseen changes to the world that require it to be expanded. You should read more about how the voting process works in the US and other successful countries and you would see how fucked up it is. Delegates and super delegates are voting in your place and they dont giv a shit what you want, they do what they want. All they care about is who lines their pockets. Thik about it, did you ever vote for your delegates even? I doubt it. Stop pretending that is democracy it is the laughing stock of the world.

I have a friend who lived in Russia till she was 10 until she was adopted and you know what? She doesnt even remember how to speak Russian or remember or care much about her life in Russia. Is that really that threatening to you?

Psychologists it depends on what feild of psychology they are in. You're thinking of psychotherapists that overcharge not psychologists that run research. There are different branches of psychology too. Scientists don't make much money at all. They barley even make the funding needed to run experiments. You're thinking of the sponsors of scientific research which many times are corporations. I didnt say for them to decide the constitution just the laws because science always evolves and it needs to be able to be changed as the science evolves.

katsucats said:
This is the dumbest idea. Have you not read even one US history book?

dakotasapphire said:
Is your goal in life to be on MAL forums to just give people sht for talking ideas? Yeah I guess it is, please get a life Sir Katsu Craps. It's valid enough to think people should need to learn something about their country before they get to decide the fate of everyone else. (By putting in a miniscule vote)

katsucats said:
Considering you think education is brainwashing, it's not surprising that you don't find anything wrong in what hundreds of years of history have taught us not to do. I don't need to crap on anyone, but dangerous and fallacious ideas need to be nipped in the bud. Not that you care, since you're anti-American and all...

Nevermind. Just read through your exchange. Oh God. You might be right. People who don't have at least a high school education in US history (Bible school doesn't count) shouldn't vote. (note that this was said in jest)

In as late as the 1960's, policies you two are suggesting were in place and easily manipulated to put hurdles and prevent blacks, Hispanics, Asians, people of low income, or whatever other group deemed politically counterproductive to the narrative of the Party from voting. Instituted today, it would mean the wholesale destruction of the Republican party (lol).

dakotasapphire said:
It hasn't been edited that much actually. It's been added to. Like woman's right to vote, or the black population's right to vote, no slavery, etc etc. We needed it to be edited.

dakotasapphire said:
I'm not sure majority vote is still right though. Because, regarding the topic, people are being manipulated by the one percent, and things fall through cracks, and the system isn't working. But we're not robots, we don't fit in little boxes, we don't all do the same thing living in a matrix.

dakotasapphire said:
Russians aren't threatening because they've lived through socialism, the fall of it, and came into more people orientated, less nonsensical government standings.

dakotasapphire said:
Who wants a big government anyways?

dakotasapphire said:
I'm talking about letting muslims/mexicans and people who won't come into our culture and inherit it, or bother to learn our language and our history. They're the threats. Do you want to become another part of the middle east? Because I'm sure they'd love to take us over for our resources. Did you want to become Mexico?

dakotasapphire said:
Science isn't really evolving the way it use to. Maybe Biology, and astronomy, but otherwise, I'm not finding anything worth while coming out of science besides those weird 3D printers/ hoverboard skate parks. I still don't think scientists think for other people unless they're medical scientists, biologists, naturopaths...

katsucats said:
In as late as the 1960's, policies you two are suggesting were in place and easily manipulated to put hurdles and prevent blacks, Hispanics, Asians, people of low income, or whatever other group deemed politically counterproductive to the narrative of the Party from voting. Instituted today, it would mean the wholesale destruction of the Republican party (lol).