|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 21 2017 00:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 22:50 Dav1oN wrote:On November 20 2017 21:41 Big J wrote:On November 20 2017 21:32 Laurens wrote:
Just wait until the Belgian elections next year. I think it's likely we'll break our previous record of 541 days without government. Both extreme right and extreme left have increased in popularity, which (probably) means we'll need at least 5 parties to form a government. That's gonna take ages.
Still haven't decided if I prefer a multi-party system or a two-party one. Seems like they both suck. It doesn't matter how many parties there are if you don't force yourself into coalition governments and instead leave the country to its representatives, that means the parliament. But I guess a real democracy is not in the interest of the political and economical elites. Ofc it's not - the priority of every government is to remain control and regulations. What wants people with power? More power... On the other side - total democracy is also a bullshit because social opinion is faceless and cruel :/ and it consists of very different opinions including opinions of uneducated/stupid/violent people - which is a bad mixture. Based on what criteria do you call them uneducated/stupid/violent? You can only judge based on your own knowledge, so now you are in the dilemma to create a system that is inherently unfair by preferring your opinion (so you are the one who wants more power for yourself, the thing you seem to critizise), or you have to accept that there is no other form for a respectful, free world than the one that gives everyone's voice the same weight on matters that concern them. There is noone that can make your decisions and judge their value for you, except for yourself.
Criteria may be different, and it's hard to conretize. The thing is social opinion consists partially of irrational people (flat earth belivers for example) and by letting such to vote we are in danger of getting potentially bad result.
It may sounds weird by I don't think that anyone above 18 years should have a right to vote, moreover a potential citizen must earn this vote by making something useful for society/humanity. In my mind voting right should be earned the same way as a personal reputation.
Overall political system should be something in the very middle ( 0 ) between total democracy (+1) and total autocracy (-1). Due to lots of negative social and political tendencies between those two systems.
I'm okay with different opinions if it's based on logical conclusion, in this case flat earth beliver (or technicly any other believer) is not a person i'd like to share opinion/planet with. But that's just me.
|
Although the idea of the earning the right to vote has merit in the abstract, it is to easily abused when put into practice. Any system that is created would need to be enforced by humans. The right to vote would be awarded not by the system, but by humans applying the rules of the system justly. With that in mind, it is easy to see how fragile such a system would be and how quickly the population would lose faith in it.
There is also the other problem that resentment among those who could not earn the right to vote. Even in a perfectly fair and justly apply system, those could not earn the right to vote would feel disenfranchised. They would rightly feel that the system that was created did not represent their interests and might rebel against it. Such rebellions or dissent would need to be managed and in the worst case, physically opposed by the state. Thus creating a cycle of those elites(they would be called elites) oppressing people in the system that do not have a say in the system.
So, though a merit base voting rights seems like it would result in the best decisions making by the state, its flaws are to numerous to be put into place. The problem of the uninformed voter has always a worry of democracy, but it is not a problem that is easily addressed without creating other systemic flaws.
|
Merit based voting is a question history has answered repeatedly.
Look back to when land owners gave up their sole right to vote, or the aristocracy, or male, or not black people, ect ect, if you want to find the answer.
|
@Nyxisto: in case of new elections, is it possible for your party to recover its senses and campaign on a coalition with Die Linke and the Greens? I mean, since your party rightly refuse to govern again with the right, there are not many other realistic choices, right?
|
And now the signs seem to point towards new elections.......? What is going on here
|
On November 21 2017 03:21 Mafe wrote:
And now the signs seem to point towards new elections.......? What is going on here
What's so surprising? If you can't have a stable majority, it sounds logical.
|
It's strategically possible but I don't think in this or the next election because the votes are missing. The left part of the political spectrum is weak at the moment, missing about 10% of the votes to get a solid majority, and Conservatives hate red/red/green so much that they usually manage to run successful scare campaigns.
If we go into another recession under a Conservative government and if the 'realo' wing of the Left wins out then I think it could be possible at some point.
But overall Germany is a fairly conservative country, if nothing much changes I think the voters overall would reject it.
|
On November 21 2017 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:
It's strategically possible but I don't think in this or the next election because the votes are missing. The left part of the political spectrum is weak at the moment, missing about 10% of the votes to get a solid majority, and Conservatives hate red/red/green so much that they usually manage to run successful scare campaigns.
If we go into another recession under a Conservative government and if the 'realo' wing of the Left wins out then I think it could be possible at some point.
But overall Germany is a fairly conservative country, if nothing much changes I think the voters overall would reject it.
OK.
By the way, in your campaigns, don't parties announce in advance with whom they would prefer to govern?
|
Well okay, what if we're making a system in which u can earn a right to vote at specific sphere of human life.
Let's say u're an economist with certain degree.
You already passed a specific test to earn your vote.
You can vote and cause any influence only in economic domain.
The same way with any sportsman - achieved degree - earned vote - got a possibility to vote for sports questions.
If you want to make an influence on another domains - try to achieve it, just like an education.
So if a person got no idea about recent domain of vote - he/she's not allowed to vote.
Any system got a way to be improved, and it would be not fair to make a comparison between slavery/racism back in days with modern world.
|
|
|
On November 21 2017 03:30 Dav1oN wrote:
Well okay, what if we're making a system in which u can earn a right to vote at specific sphere of human life.
Let's say u're an economist with certain degree.
You already passed a specific test to earn your vote.
You can vote and cause any influence only in economic domen.
The same way with any sportsman - achieved degree - earned vote - got a possibility to vote for sports questions.
If you want to make an influence on another domains - try to achieve it, just like an education.
So if a person got no idea about recent domain of vote - he's not allowed to vote, but you can do it on your own specific domain.
Any system got a way to be improved, and it would be not fair to make a comparison between slavery/racism back in days with modern world.
The solution is not to restrict votes to "technocrats" or "experts," but to educate the people so that they have a better grasp at what's in stake in such or such field. Politics should not be about technicality; first you vote on a general vision of the world, then you find competent people to apply your program.
|
On November 21 2017 03:28 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:
It's strategically possible but I don't think in this or the next election because the votes are missing. The left part of the political spectrum is weak at the moment, missing about 10% of the votes to get a solid majority, and Conservatives hate red/red/green so much that they usually manage to run successful scare campaigns.
If we go into another recession under a Conservative government and if the 'realo' wing of the Left wins out then I think it could be possible at some point.
But overall Germany is a fairly conservative country, if nothing much changes I think the voters overall would reject it. OK. By the way, in your campaigns, don't parties announce in advance with whom they would prefer to govern?
that's more or less considered common knowledge so I don't think they state who they want to work with.
The opposite does happen though if it goes through the entire spectrum: parties making statements that they won't go into a coalition with certain parties no matter what (recently AfD and DieLinke a couple years ago)
|
On November 21 2017 03:34 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 03:28 TheDwf wrote:On November 21 2017 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:
It's strategically possible but I don't think in this or the next election because the votes are missing. The left part of the political spectrum is weak at the moment, missing about 10% of the votes to get a solid majority, and Conservatives hate red/red/green so much that they usually manage to run successful scare campaigns.
If we go into another recession under a Conservative government and if the 'realo' wing of the Left wins out then I think it could be possible at some point.
But overall Germany is a fairly conservative country, if nothing much changes I think the voters overall would reject it. OK. By the way, in your campaigns, don't parties announce in advance with whom they would prefer to govern? that's more or less considered common knowledge so I don't think they state who they want to ally up with. The opposite does happen though if it goes through the entire spectrum: parties making statements that they won't go into a coalition with certain parties no matter what (recently AfD and DieLinke a couple years ago)
So, when the last campaign happened, did people expect the SPD to govern again with the CDU?
|
On November 21 2017 03:30 Dav1oN wrote:
Well okay, what if we're making a system in which u can earn a right to vote at specific sphere of human life.
Let's say u're an economist with certain degree.
You already passed a specific test to earn your vote.
You can vote and cause any influence only in economic domain.
The same way with any sportsman - achieved degree - earned vote - got a possibility to vote for sports questions.
If you want to make an influence on another domains - try to achieve it, just like an education.
So if a person got no idea about recent domain of vote - he/she's not allowed to vote.
Any system got a way to be improved, and it would be not fair to make a comparison between slavery/racism back in days with modern world.
Assuring everyone can vote is how you avoid racism and classism disenfranchising citizens. Racism of the past is the racism of today. Humanity doesn’t beat racism, we keep it down and assure it doesn’t come to power again. Systems of government need to be designed for durability during dysfunction. A system where people could be never granted or stripped of the right to vote on issues is not durable at all. It is primed to be abused.
|
On November 21 2017 03:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 03:30 Dav1oN wrote:
Well okay, what if we're making a system in which u can earn a right to vote at specific sphere of human life.
Let's say u're an economist with certain degree.
You already passed a specific test to earn your vote.
You can vote and cause any influence only in economic domen.
The same way with any sportsman - achieved degree - earned vote - got a possibility to vote for sports questions.
If you want to make an influence on another domains - try to achieve it, just like an education.
So if a person got no idea about recent domain of vote - he's not allowed to vote, but you can do it on your own specific domain.
Any system got a way to be improved, and it would be not fair to make a comparison between slavery/racism back in days with modern world. The solution is not to restrict votes to "technocrats" or "experts," but to educate the people so that they have a better grasp at what's in stake in such or such field. Politics should not be about technicality; first you vote on a general vision of the world, then you find competent people to apply your program.
But you can't educate everybody equally, that's why we got only one Elon Musk and ton on flat earth believers.
|
On November 21 2017 02:48 Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:33 Big J wrote:On November 20 2017 22:50 Dav1oN wrote:On November 20 2017 21:41 Big J wrote:On November 20 2017 21:32 Laurens wrote:
Just wait until the Belgian elections next year. I think it's likely we'll break our previous record of 541 days without government. Both extreme right and extreme left have increased in popularity, which (probably) means we'll need at least 5 parties to form a government. That's gonna take ages.
Still haven't decided if I prefer a multi-party system or a two-party one. Seems like they both suck. It doesn't matter how many parties there are if you don't force yourself into coalition governments and instead leave the country to its representatives, that means the parliament. But I guess a real democracy is not in the interest of the political and economical elites. Ofc it's not - the priority of every government is to remain control and regulations. What wants people with power? More power... On the other side - total democracy is also a bullshit because social opinion is faceless and cruel :/ and it consists of very different opinions including opinions of uneducated/stupid/violent people - which is a bad mixture. Based on what criteria do you call them uneducated/stupid/violent? You can only judge based on your own knowledge, so now you are in the dilemma to create a system that is inherently unfair by preferring your opinion (so you are the one who wants more power for yourself, the thing you seem to critizise), or you have to accept that there is no other form for a respectful, free world than the one that gives everyone's voice the same weight on matters that concern them. There is noone that can make your decisions and judge their value for you, except for yourself. Criteria may be different, and it's hard to conretize. The thing is social opinion consists partially of irrational people (flat earth belivers for example) and by letting such to vote we are in danger of getting potentially bad result. It may sounds weird by I don't think that anyone above 18 years should have a right to vote, moreover a potential citizen must earn this vote by making something useful for society/humanity. In my mind voting right should be earned the same way as a personal reputation. Overall political system should be something in the very middle ( 0 ) between total democracy (+1) and total autocracy (-1). Due to lots of negative social and political tendencies between those two systems. I'm okay with different opinions if it's based on logical conclusion, in this case flat earth beliver (or technicly any other believer) is not a person i'd like to share opinion/planet with. But that's just me.
You keep on circling back to the same problem again. Which is: Who is to decide upon which degree between democracy and autocracy it should be? If this is a choice made by democracy it is one revertable by democracy, so you are in a full-blown democracy, the one that I want. If it is decided by some autocratic means, you have absolutely no way to prevent that an idiot is the one who decides it, so you are exactly where you do not want to be.
|
And Elon Musk is just a rich dude who can’t deliver on electric car that normal people can afford and runs unsafe car factories.
|
On November 21 2017 03:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 03:30 Dav1oN wrote:
Well okay, what if we're making a system in which u can earn a right to vote at specific sphere of human life.
Let's say u're an economist with certain degree.
You already passed a specific test to earn your vote.
You can vote and cause any influence only in economic domain.
The same way with any sportsman - achieved degree - earned vote - got a possibility to vote for sports questions.
If you want to make an influence on another domains - try to achieve it, just like an education.
So if a person got no idea about recent domain of vote - he/she's not allowed to vote.
Any system got a way to be improved, and it would be not fair to make a comparison between slavery/racism back in days with modern world.
Assuring everyone can vote is how you avoid racism and classism disenfranchising citizens. Racism of the past is the racism of today. Humanity doesn’t beat racism, we keep it down and assure it doesn’t come to power again. Systems of government need to be designed for durability during dysfunction. A system where people could be never granted or stripped of the right to vote on issues is not durable at all. It is primed to be abused.
For me it sounds like a false reasoning. At the moment everyone in your country has a right to vote, so tell me honestly, did u get rid of racism?
Yes, these are different shades of racism, but still, racism came from very ancient times of our ancestors - not from modern politics and right to vote. But I agree about outdated governments.
|
In my ideal world, the people I like will be able to vote, and the people I don’t will have no right to vote. That’s pretty much what we’re getting at so why not just straight up say it?
|
On November 21 2017 03:35 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 03:34 Toadesstern wrote:On November 21 2017 03:28 TheDwf wrote:On November 21 2017 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:
It's strategically possible but I don't think in this or the next election because the votes are missing. The left part of the political spectrum is weak at the moment, missing about 10% of the votes to get a solid majority, and Conservatives hate red/red/green so much that they usually manage to run successful scare campaigns.
If we go into another recession under a Conservative government and if the 'realo' wing of the Left wins out then I think it could be possible at some point.
But overall Germany is a fairly conservative country, if nothing much changes I think the voters overall would reject it. OK. By the way, in your campaigns, don't parties announce in advance with whom they would prefer to govern? that's more or less considered common knowledge so I don't think they state who they want to ally up with. The opposite does happen though if it goes through the entire spectrum: parties making statements that they won't go into a coalition with certain parties no matter what (recently AfD and DieLinke a couple years ago) So, when the last campaign happened, did people expect the SPD to govern again with the CDU?
Schulz didn't explicitly rule it out during the campaign and I think people were a little surprised how fast he rejected talks as soon as the election results came rolling in. I think people expected the SPD to at least talk to the CDU, but it was much more unpopular idea from the start than it was four years ago. People tend to get tired of Grand coalitions pretty fast, especially because the last one basically had a 80% majority. (because the AfD and FDP both very slightly fell below the 5% threshold this bloated the CDU/SPD majority).
It's probably important to point out that they barely made it above 50% this year. If the CDU tanks hard in re-elections even this might not be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
