Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[10ebbor10]

The thread evolved away from European discussion, so I gave an non European example. The US is actually a great example of how not to do anything, and ID is teached in some states.

Not since 2005.

I was certain I'd read somewhere about ID and Darwinian evolution being teached as equal, but can't find it. My bad.

Anyway, though outdated, the argument still stands.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Cut the cynicism please. Basic politeness is advised for a progressive discussion.

i'm sorry i went there, i just hate that quote for a number of reasons. first it assumes "democracy" as a political system, as if the word was sufficiently descriptive. there are a lot of different systems called democratic with varying degrees of success in various areas. and then it goes on to admit that "democracy" has it's failures, while making it seem like it is impossible to improve upon. it's a catchy phrase with a dangerous message.

Watch out with quotes there. Putting words in other people's mouth's isn't nice.

I'm also not defending "cutting away the ignorants", as in, ban stupid people from voting, instead i argue that we should demand that people who want to vote participate more actively in politics.

But what about those who don't have the option to participate. That system could easily result in a group of political paria's, without vote and without rights.

who are those? the requirements should be pretty lax, like, go to any political event and get a stamp in your voter's card, get five stamps and you're ok to vote that year. political events should also be more frequent in a political system that demands aspiring voters to participate in them, and i can already easily find an event like this every week in the small city i live in

And what about the people that live out in the country? I mean, not everyone lives in a city. What about the sick, the elderly, and all those who can't make it. How about people with annoying job time, the poor, and those who live large amounts of time out of the country.

internet? participating on forums, filling out public opinion surveys, commenting on news pages, etc. people who live out on the country usually also have means to get to nearby cities when something interesting shows up, political events should qualify as interesting for a voter.
The sick: again, internet. one could also be excused from the requirements if one has a history of political activity prior to the sickness.
The elderly: what about them?
All those who can't make it: it's not like you have to show up at the same time and place every week. if you can't make it this time, other opportunities should come up.
People with annoying job time: the government should enforce the workers right to miss a few days of work per year to participate in these events\activities.
The poor: what about them?
Those who live large amounts of time out of the country: again, internet, and a history of participation

Said system would be expensive to check and prevent falsification, and easily subverted. You'd have people just passing by to get their stamps, and stuff like that.

I don't think that would be a huge problem, the goal of the system is to make sure people are actually interested enough to put some effort into voting and incentive political parties to actually interact with people and keep them on the loop.
About it being expensive, it's probably true, but i think it would be beneficial in the long run for a country to have better informed voters and more ways for people to get directly involved in politics

Besides, just by forcing people to go somewhere you won't actually teach them something. A significant majority wouldn't even listen, I'm afraid.

why would they go then? if they are interested in participating in the political process they'd likely enjoy these activities

the requirements should be pretty lax, like, go to any political event and get a stamp in your voter's card, get five stamps and you're ok to vote that year. political events should also be more frequent in a political system that demands aspiring voters to participate in them, and i can already easily find an event like this every week in the small city i live in

Like 10ebbor10 said, that would achieve nothing. If you force somebody to listen to something does not mean they actually pay attention.

then why bother going at all? it's not like voting is mandatory

i mainly think it is a façade not because it inevitably devolves into a two identical party system or because of the iron law of oligarchy, but mainly because elected governments rarely have real power and even if they represented the will of the electorate they still have to bend for the market and international politics.

That's not necessarily true. Governments have influence on the market and on international politics. Sure, influence varies a lot between countries, but that is what we try to balance out by things like the EU.

even the biggest governments are subjects to corporate overlords. if they can influence markets, it's usually for the benefit of those holding their balls

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

how nice, you know that quote! i love how this quote is used to excuse all the failings of "democracy". as if "democracy" was a sufficiently descriptive word to define a political system that is better than all the others that have been tried since the beginning of time, in every situation

Well, I think it is better. Sure, autocratic systems may be faster making decisions during a crisis, but it's a question of values. If you want your voice to be heard as an individual, there is no better system.

it's not about democracy vs autocracy though, it's about blind devotion and dogmatic defense of an imperfect system as the ultimate system. democracy, however it's defined by the status quo, is beyond criticism, because everything else sucks worse or is exactly the same.

[Another]

So what you propose, Askot, is exactly opposite to what some countries do to combat political apathy - mandatory voting. What voter turnover do you expect compared to usual 40-60%? - 20%, 10%, 5%? Will it give disproportionately large political power to motivated and disciplined religion-like groups compared to moderates?

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i believe the turnover would be smaller, but not so much as one would expect from looking at the fraction of the population that is politically active in the conventional system. If people felt voting was more meaningful (and adding requisites makes it sound much more like an important thing), it would motivate a large number of people to get more involved, including people that don't vote in this system.
People like voting, they like to have a voice, they'll put up an effort for it if they think of if as meaningful.

I reckon said system would probably give an advantage to the fringes of the political spectrum, but i think that's a good thing. people who don't pay much attention to politics tend to vote for one of two big centre parties, but if they get a little deeper into politics they usually tend to agree more with smaller, more focused parties. Though if you use a preferential voting system, even the polarized get to cast a vote for the lesser evil.

[10ebbor10]

Actually, with restrictions as wide as you seem to be advocating(including internet fora, comments* and stuff like that), the majority of the people would already qualify. So it'd just be an expensive exercise in uselessness.

However, do you really want to give the government, or anyone a tool with which they can observe the political motivations of every person in their nation, and influence them. (Just ensure that there're more boards compliant with your vision than there're with other people)

*which aren't usually a sign of intelligence

[Sheb]

And there is a moral argument. A stupid, unpoliticized person is still a person, and still has a right to a say in how he/she is governed.

[hector13]

Another problem with forcing someone to earn the vote is that a lot of people won't be interested in trying to get through the political nonsense that every party seems to want to get the point across: "we can do it better than any other party you can vote for."

If I had to do that 5 times every year to get a vote, I wouldn't vote. You run into the other problems of things like phobias or mental illness. I suffer from mild depression, I don't particularly want to sit in a room full of people I don't know listening to someone I don't care about talking about some issues in which I have little interest. If I want to know more about something, whether it's a political figure, party or idea, I go on t'internet and see what I can find.

More problems arise such as whether or not these things should cover major national politics or those of the local area in which they're appearing. In the UK, local councils can be run by a party which isn't in power in parliament, or an area which had fewer MPs of the ruling party returned to parliament (Scotland, for example, has one Conservative MP in the British parliament). It rather encourages the continuance of what are referred to as 'safe seats' in the UK, in which a party can usually make little effort to maintain a hold on a constituency. Chances are, most of the voters there already know who they're going to vote for in any future election, so what's the point in spending money on making sure the local population are politically active?

For example, the advice my mother gave me the first time I was going to vote (in Scotland) was "you can vote for anyone you like, but don't vote for the Conservatives."

Like I say, my preference is trying to find an impartial source (the BBC is my go to choice, hopefully shown by this) who will try to give you as much relevant information as possible. I don't even need to leave my home to get that.

I appreciate the argument that people should be more politically informed to vote, it might make the political spin a bit less effective, but to suggest that someone needs to do that in order to vote? No. The right to vote is a choice everyone should be allowed, not an obligation that only the energetic should have.

[Owlbread]

If you've ever wondered what the British right-wing is like, take a look at this comic strip.

Spoiler: Meet "Major Misunderstanding" (click to show/hide)

Also, if David Cameron and his cronies do actually take the UK into a war in Syria as they seem quite determined to do, boots on the ground and all that, you can basically guarantee Scottish independence. This is not a good idea. The best thing Mr. Cameron can do to avoid it is to ensure that no troops are sent in and we only provide air support/fire lots of rockets, but Syria is different from Libya. I predict it will get very messy, perhaps we'll see a situation closer to Kosovo.

[hector13]

If you've ever wondered what the British right-wing is like, take a look at this comic strip.

Spoiler: Meet "Major Misunderstanding" (click to show/hide)

Also, if David Cameron and his cronies do actually take the UK into a war in Syria as they seem quite determined to do, boots on the ground and all that, you can basically guarantee Scottish independence. This is not a good idea. The best thing Mr. Cameron can do to avoid it is to ensure that no troops are sent in and we only provide air support/fire lots of rockets, but Syria is different from Libya. I predict it will get very messy, perhaps we'll see a situation closer to Kosovo.

Surely sending foreign troops in, even just for peacekeeping duties, is better than letting Syrians use chemical weapons against each other?

The fact that there's a Conservative government in Westminster will probably do more for Scottish independence than sending troops into a war zone, anyway.

One fairly significant issue is who committed the attack. Another is what Russia might do, given that this is another nearby Arab country, an ally in fact, that a former long-time enemy might attack. Cameron also seems to want to put a vote to parliament, though he can still sign-off on an attack if they vote otherwise. It's going to take a while to sort it all out, and in that time a lot can happen.

[Owlbread]

The Syrians using chemical weapons against each other is no worse than any of the other horrors that have been happening in the country over the last few years. My suggested course of action would be to hold off on any kind of military intervention without it being under the auspices of the UN. Any action taken in the meantime would be to pile funds into improving conditions for refugees in Northern Iraq and other areas. Humanitarian aid as opposed to military intervention, which really just consists of firing a few rockets at Assad "to teach him a lesson". Maybe that would help the West gain the respect of Russia and China, though it is wishful thinking.

We know that the goal of this intervention won't be to change the regime, simply to "punish" the regime. Fat lot of good that's going to do, especially since all Assad has to do is ignore the punishment and keep using chemical weapons. What will we do then? Just fire more rockets. If he does that, as the Serbs did in the 1990s, he can drag this out for as long as he likes while the Western taxpayers' money pours down the plughole.

But yes, a Tory government in Westminster is doing a lot of good for the cause of independence, same with UKIP's fortunes south of the border and the lack thereof up here. That said, one of the most powerful arguments for independence is that we would never be sucked into another war like Iraq or Afghanistan again without our consent. I actually find it works better when chatting to undecideds than talking about Tories. Now Britain, and by extension Scotland, is about to get involved in another extremely volatile/sectarian/harrowing conflict in the middle east. Cameron had better play his cards right here or he's toast, and so is the Union. Having listened to Ed Milliband tonight on BBC, Labour are right behind him as well.

[MonkeyHead]

This could be the trigger we need in the UK for someone to come along and take a stand, be it someone in one of the big parties ready to remove one of the incumbent leaders, or someone coming from nowhere to shake up the old order - when 75% of voters dont want involvement in another war (as shown in a poll done by the Sun, which is pretty firm in its Tory support), we are simply crying out for a leader who will listen and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Sheb]

Well, don't skin the bear before it's killed, the only thing Cameron has been attacking Assad with so far are sternly worded letters, I guess in the hope to kill him from papercut.

[shadenight123]

If Israel barges in Syria, I expect another Blood bath.
One that will end with Israel in charge of the Entire Middle-East.

[MonkeyHead]

Well, don't skin the bear before it's killed, the only thing Cameron has been attacking Assad with so far are sternly worded letters, I guess in the hope to kill him from papercut.

Oh, Cameron is pushing this alright... possibly to save Obama some face when it all goes tits up.

UK to put motion before security council regarding Syria...

[burningpet]

If Israel barges in Syria, I expect another Blood bath.
One that will end with Israel in charge of the Entire Middle-East.

Why would Israel want that?