06 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettNow, I've had some ideas about the form this country might take, as follows:
I call upon everyone who had a combined score of -10 or lower to form our own country. It will be a left wing, libertarian paradise, unfettered by creationists and Republicans. Instead of being constantly held in check by intellectually stunted reactionaries, our glorious utopia will be able to soar to new, unheard of heights. Progress and prosperity in qua ...[text shortened]... requires a combined score of -10 or lower. Join me, comrades, throw off your chains and be free!
In America (for example) the people vote only once every four years, or every two years if you count mid-term elections. You call that a democracy? That's a pitiful amount of citizen involvement. I call on the citizens to be able to directly vote on a wide variety of issues, throughout the year. This would all be done through online voting. If they can get millions of people to vote for something as stupid as American Idol, then they can make it work for real legislation.
But here's the thing: all your voting results would be tabulated throughout your life to plot your political graph as we have done in this thread. Instead of just filling out a questionnaire, your graph would be plotted by how you voted on real issues.
Let's assume that our country still finds some use for a legislature and a President. Instead of electing these people by a vote, I propose that our country be a meritocracy. The people who had the lowest combined score on their lifetime political graph would automatically assume their position in the legislature. We could have an eligibility requirement that says they had to have cast a certain number of votes in general elections prior to that to insure that we only got people who were politically aware, and politically active, into the positions. If these people subsequently tried to betray their principles upon assuming office by casting right wing, authoritarian votes, their graph would jump toward the plus side and they would be automatically removed from office. Perhaps the President would be the legislator with the lowest combined score, who had already served a certian amount of time in the legislature. Amongst the people who have finished the graph in this thread, Redmike, with a combined score of -17.42 would automatically become the President.
Instead of having various conservative liberal mood swings, this arrangement would institutionalize left wing, libertarian thinking. Without constant political haggling between the left and the right, maybe some real progress could be made. As for the potential problem of right wing theists being disenfranchised in such a country, I suppose it would be assumed that they'd have their own country, with free movement between the two based upon their graph score.
Any comments?
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettThat's a great idea - I think I'm now President by that method.
Now, I've had some ideas about the form this country might take as follows:
In America (for example) the people vote only once every four years, or every two years if you count mid-term elections. You call that a democracy? That's a pitiful amount of citizen involvement. I call on the citizens to be able to directly vote on a wide variety of issues, th ...[text shortened]... own country, with free movement between the two based upon their graph score.
Any comments?
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettIf I choose to deny any form of government being imposed in our new country, does that make me a front runner for President? 😉
Now, I've had some ideas about the form this country might take as follows:
In America (for example) the people vote only once every four years, or every two years if you count mid-term elections. You call that a democracy? That's a pitiful amount of citizen involvement. I call on the citizens to be able to directly vote on a wide variety of issues, th ...[text shortened]... own country, with free movement between the two based upon their graph score.
Any comments?
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettI'm not so sure the combined score is a good indicator of leadership, even if you want a libertarian structure. Institutionalised thinking isn't a good basis for government, no matter what the intention. In my view you risk creating a left wing despot and this can have as much potential for trauma as a right wing one.
Now, I've had some ideas about the form this country might take, as follows:
In America (for example) the people vote only once every four years, or every two years if you count mid-term elections. You call that a democracy? That's a pitiful amount of citizen involvement. I call on the citizens to be able to directly vote on a wide variety of issues, t ...[text shortened]... own country, with free movement between the two based upon their graph score.
Any comments?
I would suggest an amalgamate of representation, the most advanced of each of the four points. Whilst a prerequisite of -10 remains for the country (thereby ensuring left, libertarian views), it would do well to balance the right and the left, the authoritarian with the libertarian. A council/senate if you will.
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by StarrmanRight. You're name is first on the list for the Gulag. 😉
I'm not so sure the combined score is a good indicator of leadership, even if you want a libertarian structure. Institutionalised thinking isn't a good basis for government, no matter what the intention. In my view you risk creating a left wing despot and this can have as much potential for trauma as a right wing one.
I would suggest an amalgamate ...[text shortened]... e the right and the left, the authoritarian with the libertarian. A council/senate if you will.
If you're fearing another Stalin, that would require people willing to accept a left wing, authoritarian position. If a left wing, libertarian viewpoint is institutionalized then a Stalin would clearly be unacceptable. Moving up the scale to authoritarianism from libertarianism would automatically disqualify someone from office. That's why the combined score is essential.
I don't want any right wing anything in this country. That's why we're forming the new country in the first place, because right wingers make me want to vomit (and presumably the others as well).
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettGreat, you've given up on that "take our country back" thingy.
Right. You're name is first on the list for the Gulag. 😉
If you're fearing another Stalin, that would require people willing to accept a left wing, authoritarian position. If a left wing, libertarian viewpoint is institutionalized then a Stalin would clearly be unacceptable. Moving up the scale to authoritarianism from libertarianism would automatical ...[text shortened]... he first place, because right wingers make me want to vomit (and presumably the others as well).
Funny thing about the graph...where are all the right-wingnuts?
My observation is that the farther away from center you are, the less satisfied you are with anything.
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettSorry, I re-read my post and it's a little ambiguous. I intended to suggest that people were chosen from the four points already within the allowed demographic, rather than from the entire graph as such. So obviously anyone in the top-left, top-right or bottom-right areas of the original grapoh would be out. The select government would be chosen from the pre-requisite peoples with a -10 score.
Right. You're name is first on the list for the Gulag. 😉
If you're fearing another Stalin, that would require people willing to accept a left wing, authoritarian position. If a left wing, libertarian viewpoint is institutionalized then a Stalin would clearly be unacceptable. Moving up the scale to authoritarianism from libertarianism would automatical ...[text shortened]... he first place, because right wingers make me want to vomit (and presumably the others as well).
07 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSo voting a certain way gives you more power to rule. Are you going
Now, I've had some ideas about the form this country might take, as follows:
In America (for example) the people vote only once every four years, or every two years if you count mid-term elections. You call that a democracy? That's a pitiful amount of citizen involvement. I call on the citizens to be able to directly vote on a wide variety of issues, t ...[text shortened]... own country, with free movement between the two based upon their graph score.
Any comments?
to get honest votes or people trying to get power by voting the way
that gives that to them?
Kelly
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettDidn't Lenin give this famous speech in 1917? What happened?
I call upon everyone who had a combined score of -10 or lower to form our own country. It will be a left wing, libertarian paradise, unfettered by creationists and Republicans. Instead of being constantly held in check by intellectually stunted reactionaries, our glorious utopia will be able to soar to new, unheard of heights. Progress and prosperity in qua ...[text shortened]... requires a combined score of -10 or lower. Join me, comrades, throw off your chains and be free!
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by RedmikeSorry, Karl Marx, Stalin, Kreuchev....maybe Andropov?.....either way it sounds like a communist "pipe dream" that will never materialise unless people have a reason to improve their living standards on a personal level.
No, Lenin never made any speech like this at all.