State of American Politics

[Libertarian Freemen]

Crazy idea: individual human beings (not corporate entities) who actually own land should be the only ones allowed to vote. It will eliminate most of the special interests.

[Anime Daisuki]

Sept 3, 2008 8:22:57 GMT -5 Mukeli said:

I recall during a political science class the teaching assistant had us debate if the U.S. should refer to itself as an empire and start cultivating a society that recognizes the U.S. as an empire. Any thoughts on this?

That's a very good topic, why don't you open a new debate thread on this?

[Shizensky]

Sept 7, 2008 20:32:48 GMT -5 Libertarian Freemen said:

Crazy idea: individual human beings (not corporate entities) who actually own land should be the only ones allowed to vote. It will eliminate most of the special interests.

So you're saying that if there was a family of 5 in a household, 3 being the adults including the parents, but only one of them would be able to vote because they're the authorized land owner?

Feels like an aristocracy in the making, almost.

[New Dracora]

Sept 7, 2008 20:32:48 GMT -5 Libertarian Freemen said:

Crazy idea: individual human beings (not corporate entities) who actually own land should be the only ones allowed to vote. It will eliminate most of the special interests.

People have already done that - I believe they called it Feudalism.

[Estayland]

Sept 7, 2008 20:32:48 GMT -5 Libertarian Freemen said:

Crazy idea: individual human beings (not corporate entities) who actually own land should be the only ones allowed to vote. It will eliminate most of the special interests.

So, if someone rents an apartment or house, they shouldn't be allowed to vote? And what about those who own a house they can't afford and are about to lose because they lied on the application?

[Mukeli]

Sept 7, 2008 20:32:48 GMT -5 Libertarian Freemen said:

Crazy idea: individual human beings (not corporate entities) who actually own land should be the only ones allowed to vote. It will eliminate most of the special interests.

I think what he means here is that property owners should be allowed to vote only because towns and cities receive a good amount (if not most) of their public monies from property taxes. Being familiar with New Hampshire, there's no sales tax or income tax - the main source of revenue is property taxes. Whenever there is a vote to increase some other tax that affects the tenants, they show up to vote it down thus forcing the property owners to pay more. While no one ever said democracy was fair, it shouldn't be used to punish.

[Chronopolice]

I have also read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Excellent book. I like the political system they have in place. If you want to enjoy certain rights or privileges, you'll have to work for it.

I once viewed property or educational requirements for voting as elitist but my own country has showed me that having almost zero requirements (save for being a 18+ year old citizen that can read or write) is just as bad!

The reason I think that voting requirements like property ownership and/or educational background exist is that the right to vote is a critically important act in the life of a nation. The citizen's choices in the elections can spell boon or doom for a nation.

The next major elections in our country will be happening in 2010. We have a nice set of potential candidates this time unlike in 2004, where the only viable choice is the incumbent herself.

P.S.
I was surprised to find out that the main character in Starship Troopers is a Filipino! A certified OMGWTF! moment!!!

[Enigmatic]

The real questions with requirements is "Can it be administered fairly?" Is it possible to make sure that someone is being excluded on the basis of education or is that person being excluded because the person at voter registration doesn't want them to vote. Furthermore, how do we make sure that everyone has an equal shot at getting the required level of education?

[Alfonia]

Sept 7, 2008 19:49:09 GMT -5 Greek People Nation (GPN) said:

What Americans need to realize is that they have the power not the Government. All it comes down to is a simple vote. I look and listen to people everyday, it seems that most Americans are not what you call "Politicaly Smart". They vote for what news says and now the Race of a person. Not what they have done or not have done. My main reason for voting Republican is that they are Pro Military. We need a strong Military for Defense.

In all honesty, voting for the race of a person seems to be no news in a nation with only white presidents to this date, despite being a multi-ethnic society. That being said, I don't understand why so many, in 2008, keep staring their eyes out at mr. Obama's skin colour. Or mr. McCain's lack of skin colour for that matter. It seems to me american politics could benefit a lot from stopping to pay attention to silly things such as a person's middle name, or wether or not a VP candidate's daughter had a child at a young age; though that's true for politics everywhere i guess. It's no secret that many people vote for reasons that oneself see as silly though; I can sort of feel with what you're saying in that aspect.

Also, what i never really understood, is that you guys start your campaigning and pre-electorial work well over a year before the big day; yet you only have time for the prime candidates to face off in a mere three debates (correct me if I'm wrong about the number, i remember it to be three).

I can be jealous of the system as you actually get to "know" candidates beforehand; but I also perceive it as basicly being a competition of getting as much money as possible to burn on big screens, fancy stickers, light arrangements; and all this while some people in your country live in extreme poverty. Maybe it's a cold war of sorts, but then why not get into disarmament? Less fancy campaigns, and more debates and talking about the important issues, I'd think that would do much good.

[Enigmatic]

I agree. Men and women should be hated or loved on a personal basis. If you don't like someone have a good reason.They're racist, they slept with your girlfriend, they take candy from babies. Stop looking at the surface. Black, white, man, woman, republican, democrat, vote based on who the person is and based on their policies, not on some label.

I also agree about less fancy campaigns. I don't care how pretty they look in a suit, I want to know what they plan to do. I'd like to see a down to earth candidate that speaks his mind, is up front about his opinions, and will actually attempt to do what he says he will do and then apologize to us if he can't make it happen instead of pretending he really meant something different. If you say no new taxes and then institute some, then say I'm sorry, but we have to do this because..... I'd also like a tree made of gold and a flying saucer. Eh, I'm probably being to cynical. I'm sure there's some politician out there that doesn't engage in politics.

[TenThousand]

politics are dumb they suppose to be for the people but no there for there own personal interest jezz all i need to say sad

[CTALNH]

i don't think that you can call something politics if it is controlled by private companies

[Magthere]

The U.S. system definetly needs some adjustments first step, throw all corporate lobbyists, out a 7 story window (um I mean, out of Washington, yeah...), second step, some kind of test to show that a person actually knows what the hell he/she's voting for, and the test has to be complicated enough so you know a person understands about the issues, and the world outside the U.S. but not so complicated only a college professer could answer, getting rid of parties would be impossible because eventually everytime a large group of individuals voted and voted the same way they would all start to work together for their goals, however a solution maybe forming new parties, parties that take some democrat ideas and Republican ideas so that way a person has more possible choices, so just throw more parties in.

I'll leave it there for now and come back if I think of anything else.

[Inutoland]

Jul 29, 2010 8:18:16 GMT -5 Magthere said:

The U.S. system definetly needs some adjustments first step, throw all corporate lobbyists, out a 7 story window (um I mean, out of Washington, yeah...)

Trouble is, that just makes way for a fresh crop of pond scum lobbyists. Ban all political donations over a certain small amount per quarter.

second step, some kind of test to show that a person actually knows what the hell he/she's voting for, and the test has to be complicated enough so you know a person understands about the issues, and the world outside the U.S. but not so complicated only a college professer could answer

Hmm, difficult. The thing is, you can't force people to become educated if they choose ignorance. What this test of yours would do is reduce the number of eligible voters to a fraction. Rule by intellectuals hasn't been tried to my knowledge, but it sounds like a new aristocracy. In fact, come to think about it, this was one of the arguments for restricting the franchise: "poor people don't understand the complex issues." What you get is a system where the poor, who generally don't tend to get as good an education, have no voice.

getting rid of parties would be impossible because eventually everytime a large group of individuals voted and voted the same way they would all start to work together for their goals, however a solution maybe forming new parties, parties that take some democrat ideas and Republican ideas so that way a person has more possible choices, so just throw more parties in.

Agreed. Personally, I think a number of parties between 3 and 7 is about ideal. Gives people enough options to choose between without necessarily becoming as much of a mare's nest of tangled coalitions as the Israeli Knesset.

[Pompadoodle]

The way to get more viable parties is to move from a first past the post system to some form of proportional representation. In the American case, that would equire a major re-write of the constitution.