It has been observed that the general population is relatively ignorant when it comes to the political process and public policy and are highly susceptible to the dangers of populism, and the often corroding influence of the media.
In order to prevent the rule of mobs the logical solution to create a system which is comprised of truly competent leaders is therefore to avoid the feeble-minded from having control over the election of representatives, certainly it would be in the national interest of any country to have an electorate which is well-informed and capable of good judgment and sound analisis of the proposals put forward by potential leaders, as ultimately this translates into the common good.
It seems clear that the concept of universal suffrage though euphonious is inherently flawed as history has revealed to be true on numerous occasions, this is why I propose the requirement of a certain prerequisite condition on those who wish to cast their votes. I envisage a system where in order for one to acquire the previlege to vote he/she must pass a test on national history, civics, ethics, political philosophy, and knowledge of current events.
.....
agree or disagree?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think it is has been the case that the people are reluctant to educate themselves politically and make wise decisions, I agree with you that ignorance can be battled but I can't say that it is something that has no direct consequences, the price of universal suffrage is sometimes too high, and its idealist purposes don't outweigh its undesirable results. Think of the hugo chavezs and sarah palins that wouldn't get to power, think of how legislation could be more reasonable and free from any influence from extremists.
I don't think universal suffrage is flawed, even though most people are idiots, but that's simply because any alternatives to universal suffrage are worse. Ignorance can be battled however, by ensuring people are properly educated.
Wouldn't say my proposal would create a better system?
Originally posted by Eladardo you also agree with the OP's proposal?
People who should not have the right to vote:
People on public assistance -> accept public assistance in exchange for giving up your right to vote
People with IQ lower than 80 -> Extremely stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Originally posted by EladarRight, like disabled veterans, or anybody who benefits from a publicly subsidized corporation, or anybody in the banking industry...
People who should not have the right to vote:
People on public assistance -> accept public assistance in exchange for giving up your right to vote
Or do you just mean anybody who you think doesn't deserve to vote? Because I know day laborers who have food stamps, but produce more in a day than my friends in the financial sector, and certainly more than my colleagues in the university.
Originally posted by bbarrAnyone who takes public assistance. Vets are different in that they have served the country and their assitances is a result of obligations to employees.
Right, like disabled veterans, or anybody who benefits from a publicly subsidized corporation, or anybody in the banking industry...
Or do you just mean anybody who you think doesn't deserve to vote? Because I know day laborers who have food stamps, but produce more in a day than my friends in the financial sector, and certainly more than my colleagues in the university.
Banking industry? Anyone who chooses to work for the banks that took that money? Sure, I suppose I could go with that. I was mostly thinking about people on unemployment and other such programs.
Day laborers on food stamps would have no right to vote under what I propose.
Originally posted by EladarWait, let me get this straight. My wages are taxed to fund unemployment benefits, but if I become unemployed and benefit from the very system that I help fund, you think I shouldn't be able to vote. Are you serious?
Anyone who takes public assistance. Vets are different in that they have served the country and their assitances is a result of obligations to employees.
Banking industry? Anyone who chooses to work for the banks that took that money? Sure, I suppose I could go with that. I was mostly thinking about people on unemployment and other such programs.
Day laborers on food stamps would have no right to vote under what I propose.
So, if somebody is born into wealth, they get to vote even if they never work a day in their life. But if somebody works for minimum raise and gets food stamps in order to feed their kids, they can't vote.
Are you stupid, or just a prick?
Wait, let me get this straight. My wages are taxed to fund unemployment benefits, but if I become unemployed and benefit from the very system that I help fund, you think I shouldn't be able to vote. Are you serious?
Your taxes are for funding the government. The government decides how to spend that money. Paying taxes does not give you the right to unemployment benefits. Such entitlement attitudes is one of the reasons why this country is headed in the wrong direction.
So, if somebody is born into wealth, they get to vote even if they never work a day in their life. But if somebody works for minimum raise and gets food stamps in order to feed their kids, they can't vote.
Work for better wages. I'm sick of having to subsidize employers who do not pay enough to their workers. Why do you need to get paid more? Just go to the government to increase your income! Go on strike!
Don't go to the government. It's just another form of corporate welfare.
Originally posted by EladarDoes it work like that in the US? Over here you only get unemployment benefits if you have worked, with the amount and duration dependent on the wage of your previous job, although there is also a lower benefit programme for those who do not quality for these benefits.
[b]Wait, let me get this straight. My wages are taxed to fund unemployment benefits, but if I become unemployed and benefit from the very system that I help fund, you think I shouldn't be able to vote. Are you serious?
Your taxes are for funding the government. The government decides how to spend that money. Paying taxes does not give you the ri ...[text shortened]... Go on strike!
Don't go to the government. It's just another form of corporate welfare.[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's exactly how it works here also. Right wing nut jobs here are awfully quick to make proposals which deprive people of their rights.
Does it work like that in the US? Over here you only get unemployment benefits if you have worked, with the amount and duration dependent on the wage of your previous job, although there is also a lower benefit programme for those who do not quality for these benefits.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI thought you said yoiu only get unemployment benefits if you have worked, then you say that you can also get unemployment benefits if you did not. Which is it?
Does it work like that in the US? Over here you only get unemployment benefits if you have worked, with the amount and duration dependent on the wage of your previous job, although there is also a lower benefit programme for those who do not quality for these benefits.
There are many welfare programs in the US where having paid into the system is not a prerequisite. It simply subsidizes people who do not wish to work. You get what you subsidize.
Originally posted by EladarYou get unemployment benefits (WW) if you have worked. If you do not quality for WW or some other benefit programme the last thing one can fall back on is the minimum benefit (bijstand), which is basically just enough to keep you alive and in a home with some basic goods such as electricity and water.
I thought you said yoiu only get unemployment benefits if you have worked, then you say that you can also get unemployment benefits if you did not. Which is it?
There are many welfare programs in the US where having paid into the system is not a prerequisite. It simply subsidizes people who do not wish to work. You get what you subsidize.
Having a social safety net makes sense because it reduces crime and makes sure people can climb out of poverty, and the children of the poor don't have to prostitute themselves and instead can go to school. But of course you need the minimum wage to be higher than the minimum benefits, so that it always makes financial sense to work.