If Everyone Voted....

...for what was best for the "group"/"country"/"community"/"etc" as a whole, rather than trying to impose their own individual sense of law by voting in accordance with their "opinions"/"laws"/"religion"/"ideology"/"etc"...

Would the world not be better?

Which leads to the question, who knows what is best for the group? It's hard to say...so we come back to democracy, just let everyone vote, but in a world where most people are Christian, how can we say Democracy is a valid form of government...

Democracy in this modern world is just tyranny of the majority, nobody votes for what is best for the nation, at least the large majority does not.


So how do you solve this problem? I think it is a very important one.

Education and assuring that people are led by their own thinking. Unfortunately until the time has come that a person spends a significant amount of studying to understand interrelations between countries, states, provinces and local level they are not fit to vote. I myself count me in under the part that shouldn't vote.....

I guess we're lucky that only a certain percentage votes otherwise the world would be ran by Lady Gaga I suppose.

I don't believe it would matter. TPTB will put whoever they want in. If it means rigging an election so be it.


Deebo

My political science teacher in college told us he doesn't vote, because once you understand the electorial vote system you will realize your vote does not count. It is true that electorial voters do not have to vote with the popular vote and I know at least one did not when Bush jr was elected the second time.

Don't vote then you can't be blamed or held responsible for the fool's in office.

I think we need to move away from these conglomerations of states, i.e. Euro, Amero, proposed African Union, etc.

They are dividing us by uniting us.

There is no place for a country run by 1 person, even if he is enabled his position only by the approval of a congress in this time.


What we need is to move towards a country-wide referendum system (similar to what California has done) that is audited by an independent and randomly state selected panel in accordance with Census so no forgery of votes can be made.

Any bills passed or repealed will need to be approved by a Supreme Court of vigiliant constitutionalists who must find Constitutional support for them, thus there could be no tyranny of the majority.

Our representatives will stop working at a country-wide level and focus on local and state issues and laws.

This is probably a horrible idea, but I'm just trying to think of ways to fix this monster...

I have to chime in with the other posters. Voting is an illusion now. And probably has been for a very long time now.
Secondly. We don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic. A democracy is what they want you to believe we have. And in this country it is not a valid form of government.

Originally posted by wildshoetwt
...for what was best for the "group"/"country"/"community"/"etc" as a whole, rather than trying to impose their own individual sense of law by voting in accordance with their "opinions"/"laws"/"religion"/"ideology"/"etc"...

Would the world not be better?

Which leads to the question, who knows what is best for the group? It's hard to say...so we come back to democracy, just let everyone vote, but in a world where most people are Christian, how can we say Democracy is a valid form of government...

Democracy in this modern world is just tyranny of the majority, nobody votes for what is best for the nation, at least the large majority does not.

So how do you solve this problem? I think it is a very important one.

I reread your whole thing and I think maybe I now understand that you are thinking like how our representatives add earmarks to new legislature that only is for the good of a few or to please a large corp...and the work of the lobbiests where our voted in reps turn away from our wishes for a kickback or sex or something :-(
To curb a nations laws toward anyone groups interests is wrong, but in our system it is the norm. The answer to fix the problem? maybe every new law that effects the country in any major way or spend more then a certain sum of funds should be voted on by by their states and then the reps of each state simply turn in the results, majority wins. That way you could not corrupt the reps, well if you did it wouldn't get you very far.

reply to post by Char-Lee

The answer to fix the problem? maybe every new law that effects the country in any major way or spend more then a certain sum of funds should be voted on by by their states and then the reps of each state simply turn in the results, majority wins. That way you could not corrupt the reps, well if you did it wouldn't get you very far.

What you are proposing equates to nothing more than the majority taking away a minority's rights by vote. Our government system is a system of governance of law, not by lynch mobs. And you can't fix it by taking away the rights of one group to satisfy the whims of a larger group. If you do, then you may as well shred the constitution and the bill of rights. Because after that, your individual rights and freedoms cease to exist.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

The answer to fix the problem? maybe every new law that effects the country in any major way or spend more then a certain sum of funds should be voted on by by their states and then the reps of each state simply turn in the results, majority wins. That way you could not corrupt the reps, well if you did it wouldn't get you very far.

What you are proposing equates to nothing more than the majority taking away a minority's rights by vote. Our government system is a system of governance of law, not by lynch mobs. And you can't fix it by taking away the rights of one group to satisfy the whims of a larger group. If you do, then you may as well shred the constitution and the bill of rights. Because after that, your individual rights and freedoms cease to exist.

I don't realy understand what you mean. I am simply saying every citizen has a voice and votes on all things that effect the country...how is that mob rule or lynch mobs? How does that leave out anyone let alone a minority...except non citizens?

reply to post by Char-Lee

My post was in reference to the "majority rules" part of your statement. Majority rules is unconstitutional. We live in a constitutional republic, although some call it a democratic republic. That means we, and those in our government are supposed to abide by the same set of laws. That law, including our bill of rights, governs how things are done. Ideally, this protects the rights of the individual, as well as those of the people.

A democracy, on the other hand, is a majority rules form of government. It doesn't matter what the law is, we'll just change it by a 51% majority vote. And the other 49% can just live with it. So the rights of the individual, and the whole just went out the window.

And as Karl Marx himself once said, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

It’s unpatriotic not to vote, or at least not burn your ballot outside the polling station. Because at least someone who does the latter can be counted on to defend the freedom of you & your family. Although they’re vote “did not count” the fact they care enough about politics to go to the poll station does.
Those who sit at home, merely reassure the dictatorship –all that is wrong, that a large proportion of the population is behaving the best way they could have wanted.

A vote cast for a minor party, is worth three to a major one. There’s no point because the 110,000 person to join the majority of Demo-Rep unless your weird enough to truly be happy for with the corruption, environmental devastation, and general a-morality these parties (don't publicly stand for) but are guaranteed to deliver you & you're neighbour.
But there’s every point in being the 3rd person to vote for a minor party that got 10. Because its saying you made the trip to the polls, you made your choice, and your being a defiant piece of s.... (peasant) I’d rather be that than a participate in a victory of evil of good, or passer by who slept in the fields when the battle was on.

Originally posted by Klassified
We don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic.

This is a popularly repeated fallacy using two incorrectly applied terms that are absolutely and completely unknown in political science or anywhere outside of talk radio. (FTR, I'm very right-oriented but it makes me cringe when I hear this [social] scientifically inaccurate nomenclature used.)

There is no such thing as a "constitutional republic." The words simply mean a "republic with a constitution." There are no republics on the planet earth today that don't have a constitution.

A republic is any form of state that is not a monarchy. A monarchy is a form of state where authority is vested in a state-ennobled class.

"Democracy" is not a form of authority but a method for the application of power.

Ergo, there are:

- Democratic Republics (e.g. United States, Germany, France)
- Theocratic Republics (e.g. Iran)
- Socialist Republics (e.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cuba)
- Aristocratic Republics (e.g. the former City-State of Venice)

These terms can be further modified with the use of the words "unitary" or "federal" depending on how the application of power is sub-divided so that:

it is correct to say the United States and Germany are Democratic Federal Republics
it is correct to say France is a Democratic Unitary Republic
it is correct to say Iran is a Theocratic Unitary Republic

Originally posted by zuul000

Originally posted by Klassified
We don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic.

This is a popularly repeated fallacy using two incorrectly applied terms that are absolutely and completely unknown in political science or anywhere outside of talk radio. (FTR, I'm very right-oriented but it makes me cringe when I hear this [social] scientifically inaccurate nomenclature used.)

There is no such thing as a "constitutional republic." The words simply mean a "republic with a constitution." There are no republics on the planet earth today that don't have a constitution.

A republic is any form of state that is not a monarchy. A monarchy is a form of state where authority is vested in a state-ennobled class.

"Democracy" is not a form of authority but a method for the application of power.

Ergo, there are:

- Democratic Republics (e.g. United States, Germany, France)
- Theocratic Republics (e.g. Iran)
- Socialist Republics (e.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cuba)
- Aristocratic Republics (e.g. the former City-State of Venice)

These terms can be further modified with the use of the words "unitary" or "federal" depending on how the application of power is sub-divided so that:

it is correct to say the United States and Germany are Democratic Federal Republics
it is correct to say France is a Democratic Unitary Republic
it is correct to say Iran is a Theocratic Unitary Republic

To further edify, the presence of restraints - through organic statutes (e.g. the Bill of Rights) or accepted norms and customs (e.g. Common Law) - does not modify the fact that the United States is correctly called a "democratic federal republic", or, a "federal democratic republic."

Again, there is absolutely no such thing as a "constitutional republic." That's a made-up and nonsensical term like "elephant tree" (which I just coined). It was first used by Alexander Tsesis, a Loyola law professor, in a book he published about 5 or 6 years ago and - outside of that book and subsidiary articles based off it, as well as talk radio - is completely unheard of in any academic source and simply is not a term that makes any sense at all or has ever been used at any point in history outside of the last 5 or 6 years.

If everyone in this country voted we'd be in dire straits.

Not everyone is educated enough to be able to cast votes much less participation in any political process. The ignorant don't belong... simple as that.

reply to post by zuul000

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have no problem with the proper terms you use. I also have no problem with "constitutional republic", considering I remember the term being used when I was a young man in the early 70's. In fact, I remember who used it. One of my teachers. So the term is much older than 5 or 6 years.

Having said that, Just because I heard it so long ago doesn't make it proper. But I don't quite see it as "elephant tree", or "Scrumpdillyicious". Nevertheless, your point is well taken. And I did use the term "democratic republic" as well to clarify.

And I do know what a democracy is, and how it is applied.

BTW. A star for the political science lesson. I enjoyed the read.