Universal Suffrage

[Stasi]

Is universal suffrage the best way for positions in government, local or federal, to be filled? Do you believe that universal suffrage usually results in the best person being elected? Do you believe that universal suffrage has better or worse results in local versus federal elections? If you believe that voting rights should be expanded or constricted, howso?

In case you don't know what universal suffrage is, it is the granting of the right to vote to all or nearly all of a given population, e.g. giving everyone or nearly everyone (excepting mentally ill or felons as in this country's voting regulations) over the age of 18 the right to vote without respect to race, sex, belief system, education, etc.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64125

[Chyse]

Meh

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64129

[scherzo]

In case you don't know what universal suffrage is, it is the granting of the right to vote

curious, the granting of a right by 'whom'?





Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64138

[Stasi]

In case you don't know what universal suffrage is, it is the granting of the right to vote

curious, the granting of a right by 'whom'?

The government grants the right to vote to its people.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64145

[scherzo]

In case you don't know what universal suffrage is, it is the granting of the right to vote

curious, the granting of a right by 'whom'?

The government grants the right to vote to its people.

and the people choose the government. so we have a logical paradox here.

My belief is 'everyone' has the right to vote, and I wouldn't discriminate on age either, However 'voting' would be a low priority of rights, next to 'food' and other tangible rights. Freedoms of speech, belief and religions are important, however they don't fill the stomach.

rights aren't granted to anyone by anyone either IMO, they are there (recognized or not) Life itself grants the rights of all freedoms, a piece of paper is dead without life.

as far as governments, I consider it more of a Non binding agreement.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64149

[manadren]

On the one hand, if everyone is given the right to vote, then in the end it is those who control the information, particularly the mass media for it's reach, end up having far too much influence on who gets elected. When the uniformed vote they rely on what little information they have, and can be easy to sway with smear tactics and the like. You end up with people voting on single issues, and looking for the candidate that's easiest to relate to.

But on the other hand, if you don't allow all to vote, how do you distinguish between who gets to vote and who doesn't? Education? Income? Profession? None are truly foolproof ways of finding the informed voter, and you leave large segments of the population disenfranchised.

The failsafe of the democratic system is that if you dislike any particular political official, you only have to wait a matter of years before you have the chance to remove him. While it's not perfect, it give the average citizen enough illusion of control to keep them from taking direct action against the government. If you remove that, and are not looking to install an authoritarian regime, you are looking for trouble.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64150

[Stasi]

curious, the granting of a right by 'whom'?

The government grants the right to vote to its people.

and the people choose the government. so we have a logical paradox here.

My belief is 'everyone' has the right to vote, and I wouldn't discriminate on age either, However 'voting' would be a low priority of rights, next to 'food' and other tangible rights. Freedoms of speech, belief and religions are important, however they don't fill the stomach.

rights aren't granted to anyone by anyone either IMO, they are there (recognized or not) Life itself grants the rights of all freedoms, a piece of paper is dead without life.

as far as governments, I consider it more of a Non binding agreement.

Why does everyone have a "right" to vote? What is it about the act of voting that makes it a right fundamental to human existence?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64151

[Stasi]

On the one hand, if everyone is given the right to vote, then in the end it is those who control the information, particularly the mass media for it's reach, end up having far too much influence on who gets elected. When the uniformed vote they rely on what little information they have, and can be easy to sway with smear tactics and the like. You end up with people voting on single issues, and looking for the candidate that's easiest to relate to.

But on the other hand, if you don't allow all to vote, how do you distinguish between who gets to vote and who doesn't? Education? Income? Profession? None are truly foolproof ways of finding the informed voter, and you leave large segments of the population disenfranchised.

The failsafe of the democratic system is that if you dislike any particular political official, you only have to wait a matter of years before you have the chance to remove him. While it's not perfect, it give the average citizen enough illusion of control to keep them from taking direct action against the government. If you remove that, and are not looking to install an authoritarian regime, you are looking for trouble.

I would propose the creation of an independent body to oversee the creation of a test that an individual would have to take prior to being able to vote. The test would cover basic points about each candidates platform, plans, etc. as covered in nationally available presentations by each candidate. What good is representative government when a person votes solely on whether or not there is a 'D' or an 'R' next to a name? And what good is it if a person knows only what one person stands for, versus the others. An set of voters who is educated at least on the basics of each candidate is the only good way to pick leaders.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64152

[manadren]

On the one hand, if everyone is given the right to vote, then in the end it is those who control the information, particularly the mass media for it's reach, end up having far too much influence on who gets elected. When the uniformed vote they rely on what little information they have, and can be easy to sway with smear tactics and the like. You end up with people voting on single issues, and looking for the candidate that's easiest to relate to.

But on the other hand, if you don't allow all to vote, how do you distinguish between who gets to vote and who doesn't? Education? Income? Profession? None are truly foolproof ways of finding the informed voter, and you leave large segments of the population disenfranchised.

The failsafe of the democratic system is that if you dislike any particular political official, you only have to wait a matter of years before you have the chance to remove him. While it's not perfect, it give the average citizen enough illusion of control to keep them from taking direct action against the government. If you remove that, and are not looking to install an authoritarian regime, you are looking for trouble.

I would propose the creation of an independent body to oversee the creation of a test that an individual would have to take prior to being able to vote. The test would cover basic points about each candidates platform, plans, etc. as covered in nationally available presentations by each candidate. What good is representative government when a person votes solely on whether or not there is a 'D' or an 'R' next to a name? And what good is it if a person knows only what one person stands for, versus the others. An set of voters who is educated at least on the basics of each candidate is the only good way to pick leaders.

That seems like a good idea in theory, but the logistics would be monstrous. We have enough trouble as it is just dealing how votes are cast and counted. You'd need a significant number of government employees to pull that off. And you're left with a number of questions. Who writes the tests, who grades them, how the tests are given, what candidates are on the test, what candidates are omitted what issues are important, which aren't. And you'd still leave a significant portion of the population feeling that they have no control. That and making the test answers would essentially be the campaign, further limiting the discussion a handful of positions on a handful of issues, and unnecessarily binding elected officials to those positions.

Besides, party reps would be standing outside with cheat sheets, with party bias alongside all the correct answers.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64154

[Stasi]

The basic idea is that before you vote, you should have to know something about the individuals and the issues. What the best way of making that happen is, I don't know. The current system is insufficient. Not everyone should vote, period. Not even most people. People are weak, corrupt, and easily swayed by deceipt, not to mention that they put too much stock in the "warm-fuzzy" feeling someone gives them. Unless they can prove that they know someone about the people they're voting for and against, they shouldn't be voting. Rather than learn critical thinking skills and educate themselves on issues, they have to rely on mudslinging, populism, and mindless party loyalties to tell them who to vote for.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64155

[Chyse]

The government grants the right to vote to its people.

and the people choose the government. so we have a logical paradox here.

My belief is 'everyone' has the right to vote, and I wouldn't discriminate on age either, However 'voting' would be a low priority of rights, next to 'food' and other tangible rights. Freedoms of speech, belief and religions are important, however they don't fill the stomach.

rights aren't granted to anyone by anyone either IMO, they are there (recognized or not) Life itself grants the rights of all freedoms, a piece of paper is dead without life.

as far as governments, I consider it more of a Non binding agreement.

Why does everyone have a "right" to vote? What is it about the act of voting that makes it a right fundamental to human existence?

It's not fundemental to human existence. It's fundemental to the system of government in today's society. If we had anarchy, it wouldn't matter. But if we have elected officials that make decisions that effect the lives of the people of their country, the people of that country have the right to elect said official. Because it's their lives that will be effected and they deserve to have a voice in what happens in their life.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64157

[scherzo]

[/quote]

Why does everyone have a "right" to vote? What is it about the act of voting that makes it a right fundamental to human existence?

[/quote]


the right to vote isn't fundamental to human existence, the right to vote is fundamental to governments.

as I had previously stated, the right to vote would be a low priority. A hungry, homeless person would care more for eating than voting.


Why does everyone have a 'right' to vote? Because life grants the right.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64160

[Stasi]

Why does everyone have a "right" to vote?  What is it about the act of voting that makes it a right fundamental to human existence?

the right to vote isn't fundamental to human existence, the right to vote is fundamental to governments.

as I had previously stated, the right to vote would be a low priority. A hungry, homeless person would care more for eating than voting.


Why does everyone have a 'right' to vote? Because life grants the right.

You're contradicting yourself. You say that the right to vote isn't fundamental to human existence, then you end by saying that people have a "right" to vote because "life" grants that right. If the act of being alive gives a person a certain right, then that right is fundamental to human existence.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64168

[scherzo]

You're contradicting yourself.  You say that the right to vote isn't fundamental to human existence, then you end by saying that people have a "right" to vote because "life" grants that right.  If the act of being alive gives a person a certain right, then that right is fundamental to human existence.

it is no contradiction. My argument applies to the 'granting of a right' It is my opinion 'Life itself, grants ALL rights'

If voting is a right, it isn't granted by any government. Thus the logical paradox. Where does the government begin? The people who elect, or the government that allows for the election?




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64184

[Stasi]

I think we're just interpreting this stuff differently.

As for the "chicken and the egg" question about government - as suffrage is not truly universal (in any country, as far as I know), and since the government regulates who can and can not vote in a given election they are the ones granting the right (a government can take away what it has the power to grant). There are no true democracies that I know of, and as such, there is very little that happens at the national level where the voters have a direct say. Because laws (including those set forth in the Constitution) are devised by a cadre of political elites, it is not the People who make such laws.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64264

[scherzo]

I think we're just interpreting this stuff differently.

As for the "chicken and the egg" question about government - as suffrage is not truly universal (in any country, as far as I know), and since the government regulates who can and can not vote in a given election they are the ones granting the right (a government can take away what it has the power to grant).  There are no true democracies that I know of, and as such, there is very little that happens at the national level where the voters have a direct say.  Because laws (including those set forth in the Constitution) are devised by a cadre of political elites, it is not the People who make such laws.

After a flaw has been exposed of current gov't i.e. (universal suffrage) then I would say 'NO' it isn't the best way. Furthermore as it is my opinion government are only 'middle management' The System of the Upper management is also flawed.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:64336

[fragged one]

Is universal suffrage the best way for positions in government, local or federal, to be filled?  Do you believe that universal suffrage usually results in the best person being elected?  Do you believe that universal suffrage has better or worse results in local versus federal elections?  If you believe that voting rights should be expanded or constricted, howso?

In case you don't know what universal suffrage is, it is the granting of the right to vote to all or nearly all of a given population, e.g. giving everyone or nearly everyone (excepting mentally ill or felons as in this country's voting regulations) over the age of 18 the right to vote without respect to race, sex, belief system, education, etc.

all i know is that in civ4, universal suffrage is a very good civic to have, and actually makes other civs jealous of you.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:66300

[Stasi]

Is universal suffrage the best way for positions in government, local or federal, to be filled?  Do you believe that universal suffrage usually results in the best person being elected?  Do you believe that universal suffrage has better or worse results in local versus federal elections?  If you believe that voting rights should be expanded or constricted, howso?

In case you don't know what universal suffrage is, it is the granting of the right to vote to all or nearly all of a given population, e.g. giving everyone or nearly everyone (excepting mentally ill or felons as in this country's voting regulations) over the age of 18 the right to vote without respect to race, sex, belief system, education, etc.

all i know is that in civ4, universal suffrage is a very good civic to have, and actually makes other civs jealous of you.

Haha, yeah. What's funny, too is that when you've got a huge-ass empire that is still growing, adopting the "State Property" civic can actually make the financial situation actually get a lot better.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:66345

[fragged one]

Is universal suffrage the best way for positions in government, local or federal, to be filled?  Do you believe that universal suffrage usually results in the best person being elected?  Do you believe that universal suffrage has better or worse results in local versus federal elections?  If you believe that voting rights should be expanded or constricted, howso?

In case you don't know what universal suffrage is, it is the granting of the right to vote to all or nearly all of a given population, e.g. giving everyone or nearly everyone (excepting mentally ill or felons as in this country's voting regulations) over the age of 18 the right to vote without respect to race, sex, belief system, education, etc.

all i know is that in civ4, universal suffrage is a very good civic to have, and actually makes other civs jealous of you.

Haha, yeah. What's funny, too is that when you've got a huge-ass empire that is still growing, adopting the "State Property" civic can actually make the financial situation actually get a lot better.

i always have state property. state property ftw.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:66353

[Stasi]

Effing commie bastard!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:66366

[scherzo]

Effing commie bastard!

it would be a lonely world without some sort of community. Communism exists even in a democracy, it only isn't allowed to 'rule'

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3491, old post ID:66516