- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBut that's not the point. Of course clever people who should have the right to vote can do all that. However since the dregs of society can vote we require a system where no one candidate benefits from all the dumb idiots that just tick the first name they see on the list.
Hey Joe,
If you can't pick out your candidate from a list after watching an election campaign for three years, fill in a box and circle the correct name... we are in trouble. I could do it in any country in the world in any language. simple symbol matching... forty thousand year old scratches next to pictures of beasts in caves tell us that they wer ...[text shortened]... cessfully back then. Why can't we educate a "modern" person to accomplish at least that much?
I don't know if I'm entirely on topic, but I've always thought that each citizen should be assigned a "voting coefficient" according to certain testable criteria as to their intelligence, knowledge of the politics at issue, genreal civic-mindedness, literacy, age, etc. So ANYONE can vote, but the number of votes you get is determined by your voting coefficient. For example, if someone has a voting coefficient of 1.7, then his vote counts twice as much as his compatriot with the VC of 0.85.
Any ideas?
Dan and Mark...
Democracy is based on "statistical analysis", not logical worth per se.
You get into a can of bad crawlies real quick with the following questions:
Are Human Attributes addable? Goodness, Badness, Kindness, Meanness.
If So, then how many bad people does it take to equal 1 good person?
If we can quantify the person, are we not entitled to do so on the most logical criteria, ie, intelligence?
How many idiots does it take to equal 1 genius?
No... better we just accept that it is a flawed system. If enough people act... vote... participate then we get a "flawed, but genuine" will of the people. This is the funny thing about small local governments acting on say... 9 votes from elected officials. They can be guaranteed to "never get it right." But is there a better way? Most people are too apathetic to care. We elect sniveling cowards instinctively hoping that come time to vote they will hedge their bet's to protect themselves. Seems to work good. They mostly reflect the community out of self protection.
There's a debate: how many idiots = one genius? There are two sides:
1. Lots. That way the statistical likelihood of a good idea increases, because the idiots still produce ideas of at least random quality.
2. Few. Why shovel out more garbage if your goal is genius?
Again, Mike, 😉😛😞😲
Originally posted by royalchicken<grin> ok... shoot, i never thought of it like that. Under 1 then we are safe to promote any and all into teaching positions at Cambridge and Harvard. Under 2 , we fire all non genius professors and study only the works of known genius's on own own. 😏 I feel a real good debate here. It's a shame this thread belongs TO ME! Harr Harrrrrrrr! Doesn't feel right... not being a hijacked thread and all.
There's a debate: how many idiots = one genius? There are two sides:
1. Lots. That way the statistical likelihood of a good idea increases, because the idiots still produce ideas of at least random quality.
2. Few. Why shovel out more garbage if your goal is genius?
Again, Mike, 😉😛😞😲
Hey, Dan... were you serious about where you live having tests for voting or did I miss something?
Two things. First, what constitutes a genius? Second, I'd totally support a voting test that focused strictly on the testee's knowledge of the issue on which they are voting. Also, eliminate age restrictions. If you can past the "entry test", you can vote. Also, no-one can run for office unless they can pass the test about the election involving them; they should know their opposition.
Originally posted by royalchickenYou got me thinkin' now...
Two things. First, what constitutes a genius? Second, I'd totally support a voting test that focused strictly on the testee's knowledge of the issue on which they are voting. Also, eliminate age restrictions. If you can past the "entry test", you can vote. Also, no-one can run for office unless they can pass the test about the election involving them; they should know their opposition.
first is easy. Genius are listable people who make discoveries that ALL THE REST OF THE SPECIES rides to a better life, never understanding the discovery itself, but willing to use it for their own benefit. There have been... and i'll be generous here... maybe a hundred genius's in the last hundred thousand years.
A voting test strictly on the issue on which they are voting... Circular. By definitin, an election defines the issues, not settles them. They may "settle" an issue, but more times than not, an election only sets new considerations and issues to be dealt with.
Age restrictions. I'll go along with that. With one caveat. Children are shown to be extremely "maleable" beings and every good doctrinairian knows that a "child in my care at five, is mine for life." I think we should require that any child willing to shoot his/her tutors/teachers shows him/her self capable of independent thought😕 THAT IS A JOKE FOLKS... probably not a good one, but it puts the point over. Like a ton of bricks😞
Are you kidding me? Why would a politician care about an issue or a community or their opposition? Those things are totally irrellevent to the life and carreer of a politician. Remember... These people are losers by definition. Would a healthy, well adjusted person even WANT to be a "leader"... whatever the hell that is... These are the people who return to their highschools ten years after graduating to "show the world" that they are successful. Gag. The only thing that matters to them and their chosen occupation is 1) Looks 2) Reactionary Polling analysis.
This is not circular the way I had conceived it. For example, my home state of Maine is currently wrestling with whether to allow (I think) the Penobscot tribe to build a casino that would dwarf anything of its kind within a few hundred miles. Big boost for the tourism industry etc. This will be settled by referendum in November. The type of test I'm advocating would basically ask what the stated reasons are, what the economic impact could be, and anything else that is reasonably concrete about the point of dispute.
Just as I don't enter arguments about which I have no idea (see my dropping out of the debate between yourself and kyngj in the thread we hijacked), I don't think people's opinions on points they do not understand have any validity in making intelligent policy.
Ideally a politician is a guardian of the opinion he was elected to represent, but he should strive to run on the most rational platform. Ideally, if his opponent has a more rational viewpoint, the candidate should shift his accordingly. And to do this, he must know his opponent.
Originally posted by royalchickenWhoosh. This goes back to the basic difference between "Utopian" and "Despondent Cynic"... ie, Liberal and Conservative. You see hope in the ability of an "ideal" person. I see only slobbering meglomaniacs. Do you really think there is a politician (besides Jimmy Stewart) willing to change to anything but the "most winning" position on anything? I'll believe it if I ever see it one time. From any politician. Anywhere.
This is not circular the way I had conceived it. For example, my home state of Maine is currently wrestling with whether to allow (I think) the Penobscot tribe to build a casino that would dwarf anything of its kind within a few hundred miles. Big boost for the tourism industry etc. This will be settled by referendum in November. The type of test I ...[text shortened]... ewpoint, the candidate should shift his accordingly. And to do this, he must know his opponent.
I've never seen it on a large scale, because the politicians I have seen are mostly career politicians, not butchers, bakers, and hod carriers who suddenly get elected President. I hate to say that the only place I've seen elected officialdom function in this way is at the Unitarian church i used to attend. They'd actually have a few people running for some lay church position (mostly to do with fundraising), and they'd get together in front of the congregation, and the candidates would change their position on the issue at stake (some petty pecuniary thing usually) to try to provide the most reasonable proposal. Maybe we should be voting for elected officers to handle ONE ISSUE, and then elect someone else. Seems like, as in business, the high management is not overly useful.
Maybe. Otherwise, screw it and give me complete and unimpeded power.
Originally posted by royalchickenMy experience from "church" was Mormon. Once a year at "General Conference" we stood, raised our right hand and said "i do" when asked if we "sustained" the current flunky in Salt Lake as "the one and only true prophet of god". Kind of an Iraqi election. Much to my amusement, I understand that they no longer do that. Losing too many converts the first time they entered a church unattended by missionaries.
I've never seen it on a large scale, because the politicians I have seen are mostly career politicians, not butchers, bakers, and hod carriers who suddenly get elected President. I hate to say that the only place I've seen elected officialdom function in this way is at the Unitarian church i used to attend. They'd actually have a few people running ...[text shortened]... t is not overly useful.
Maybe. Otherwise, screw it and give me complete and unimpeded power.
Wouldn't it be neat if somehow we could all vote, at our leisure on every issue? Never mind. I just remembered my high school english class! Scarry.🙂🙄
in the latin alphabet, yes it might be easy. In Greek? Russian? Chinese/Japanese? it would be more difficult because we wouldn't be able to read the letters to sound the word in our heads to recognise the name. Not impossibe, but more difficult. Anyway, the point was about reading instructions not names. But let the point rest here, becuase I know that we understand each other - no debate left (I think)
As to language... As I stated above, picking a single name is simple symbology. I, and you could pick out a name in any language on earth after seeing it associated with the person it stood for a few times. b]
Originally posted by StarValleyWyId this the high school English class you mentioned once in one of our games....Meldrum?
My experience from "church" was Mormon. Once a year at "General Conference" we stood, raised our right hand and said "i do" when asked if we "sustained" the current flunky in Salt Lake as "the one and only true prophet of god". Kind of an Iraqi election. Much to my amusement, I understand that they no longer do that. Losing too many converts t ...[text shortened]... leisure on every issue? Never mind. I just remembered my high school english class! Scarry.🙂🙄