Too many voters

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Roman, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Have you guys ever noticed how crummy the candidates who run in elections are?

    This is a direct consequence of too many people voting. Back in the day, people like Jefferson and Washington were running for president, and something like only 10% of the population were allowed vote. On top of that, most popular voting went through electoral colleges.

    The high quality of the candidates were directly proportional to the high quality of the voters– a wealthy, highly educated elite, who earned their wealth fair and square.

    Then they started changing the rules. Poor people could vote. Black people could vote. Women could vote. People could vote directly for a senator.

    Now we get candidates like Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Dole, etc., who must run on popular platforms to appeal to large groups of people (who, like all mobs, are total idiots), while at the same time appealing to big business to fund their campaigns for reaching tens of millions of idiots.

    Bush's popular appeal is his illiteracy. Clinton was a good 'ole boy. Reagan was an actor. Does the support of 30 million idiots make you a good leader?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Where did you get that figure?

    I'm not arguing about the basic premise of your post, only about that number. For the most part, I agree with the sentiment of the post, but I'm not sure it has to do so much with the number of voters as it does the basic selection process for candidates. I.e., the rich and powerful made the selections of candidates for the voters to vote for. In the old days, by the time anything got to the voters, there was only two candidates ...and the voters didn't have shit to do with it.

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    I suppose the 'common man' needs to vote for someone he can relate too - not an intellectual but someone he could relate to at a local level; also this will appeal to business who think a 'dumber' politician will be easier to manipulate.
    Just a guess?
    Here in the UK it seems are politicians must think we the public are dumber then them with all the lies and bull they try to get away with. No wonder young people are disinterested in politics; they are inferior role models.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    We in the USA have an obvious problem that doesn't exist in very many other nations of the world .....we're a huge, HUGE nation, and it encompasses the "common man" in many and varying locales. The "common man" in the northeast ain't even close to the "common man" in the south or the west. Ditto for California ...ain't no one like them damned people!

    Perhaps we should go back to the true "representative" government, where we all select LOCAL representatives, and then they go to DC and select the president.

    Baron Max
     
  8. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    I agree Baron - the fine American visitors I have met in the UK have impressed on me the sheer vastness of your nation. This is something we Islanders fail to appreciate...it isn't in our mindset.
    Whereas we have 'micro-politics' you guys have 'macro-politics'.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    ...LOL! Don't feel bad, Zen, it's not something that even we Americans can grasp so easily. And if you pay attention to the news from the US, you'll see readily that even the newspapers and tv newscasters don't grasp it either!

    If there's such a political viewpoint or believe, we have it in abundance over here!

    We'd be far, far better off if our national leaders were elected by the state representatives instead of over the nation voting. There simply can't be a candidate who is popular in all of the states ...it's simply impossible. And yet, year after year, we pretend that we can.

    Baron Max
     
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Limiting the right to vote to property owners might not be a bad idea. Certainly, not allowing people on welfare to vote would be reasonable. Or perhaps only allowing those who actually pay taxes to vote.
     
  11. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Isn't that unconstitutional?
     
  12. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    I'd have to agree: Aristocratic Republics are superior to universal voting rights.
     
  13. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    We've only just (relatively) got the right for everyone over 18 to vote in the UK (I think there are a few health exceptions). It took many centuries of bloodshed.
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I agree, but I don't think we even need to go that far. If we just elect representatives LOCALLY, people we know and love and understand, then let them go to Washington and elect the president and whoever else is needed.

    In that way, we don't have to try to understand all of the candidates' political views and weigh them against the others. That's a lot of effort on the part of voters who would have to rely on newspapers and tv ....which is notoriously biased!

    Baron Max
     
  15. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Although it is a token democracy and not truly representative.
     
  16. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    We have a similar problem now with the European Union, Baron. There is a great distance between the voter and the structure making the decisions.
     
  17. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I don't know how it is "over yonder", but here in the USA, the great majority of voters not only don't know shit about politics, they also mostly don't give a fuck unless something affects them directly (mostly in the wallet!).

    If the tv didn't keep reminding most of them, they wouldn't even knw that there was a war going on!! ...or care!

    Baron Max
     
  18. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Yes....the 'The Age of the Great Sleep' is upon us.
     
  19. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Baron Max:

    I'd support the system, save for I live in a crazy Green Party neighbourhood and I'd be probably forced into the Gulag if there was more control given to them.
     
  20. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    I found that the greens became really fascist about stuff...not for environmental/ecological reasons but for cultural reasons.
     
  21. phoenix2634 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
    Not if you amend the constitution. :m:
     
  22. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    I have the perfect cure for the government and it has nothing to do with voters. Simply if a public official has office for three terms or more and is subsequentally defeated, that official is immediately executed on the day their current term runs out.
     
  23. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    The premise of your post is not true.

    We have many candidates, because the office is desirable. Now that is true, that basicly there is no difference between the candidates and they all apply to the most common denominator.

    But that would be true if only 10% of the current voters would vote. The real change could come only if the election system would be reformed and there were real parties with real choices....
     

Share This Page