Poll Change the vote, the poll
- Thread starter Titan_Atlas
- Start date
Titan_Atlas
Deus Vult
- 7,883
- 19,909
thefaceless
Golden Squire
- 139
- 13
It's the government's job to keep business in line from abusing the system (fucking over all the poor people), while keeping the benefits that better overall society (cheap goods, spread of wealth). I'd wager a lot, if not most, business owners who qualify for this system are greedy scumbags who don't give a shit about those less fortunate then they are. They work hard, they deserve more. The current system rewards that. I agree, to some extent, but greed generally wins out and it's only the 1% who benefit. But they all get the right to vote? That's how the USA and much of the world used to be, and it fucking sucked asides for the 1%. I dislike democracy, but this plan wouldn't fix anything. It's just going backwards.
I'd say limiting it to high IQ people would be better, but they'd still have their biases/greed. Artificial intelligence is the only reasonable outcome I can see working. Sadly, I think democracy is the lesser of the two evils (or however many), and it's the best we've got until something better comes along.
I'd say limiting it to high IQ people would be better, but they'd still have their biases/greed. Artificial intelligence is the only reasonable outcome I can see working. Sadly, I think democracy is the lesser of the two evils (or however many), and it's the best we've got until something better comes along.
Titan_Atlas
Deus Vult
- 7,883
- 19,909
Before you blame people for using a poorly constructed big government system you should watch this. ROI is an amazing motivator for corporations chartered to maximize returns.
thefaceless
Golden Squire
- 139
- 13
Yes, that's why time over time companies get a big high-five for the way they treat their employees. Walmart is full of great stories, and Amazon is another great recent example. It's only the recent explosion of logistics that has realized happy employees = better results, which hopefully will be good in the long run. Not going to trust those in control of business over a measly 10 years or so. It's still the same old people in control. Give it a while.
To give those who have only made $3 million (or whatever) get to vote it isn't going to end pretty. There are still intelligent rich people out there who would be great in this system. Then again, there are people like Wooly, which greed and the almighty $ attract (he made his first million by 21, and retired by 30 if you hadn't heard). I'd be more inclined to limit to middle class only (those who have worked hard, yet maybe content to not need more and more $). Get rid of the poor (who don't work) and the super wealthy (who work too much). If you have a high enough IQ you can vote too.
To give those who have only made $3 million (or whatever) get to vote it isn't going to end pretty. There are still intelligent rich people out there who would be great in this system. Then again, there are people like Wooly, which greed and the almighty $ attract (he made his first million by 21, and retired by 30 if you hadn't heard). I'd be more inclined to limit to middle class only (those who have worked hard, yet maybe content to not need more and more $). Get rid of the poor (who don't work) and the super wealthy (who work too much). If you have a high enough IQ you can vote too.
Big Flex
Fitness Fascist
- 4,314
- 3,166
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684
The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.
The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.
Aldarion
Egg Nazi
- 8,927
- 24,393
The rules proposed in the OP are completely retarded and not worth discussing.
But that doesnt mean we cant change voting rules. Here is my preference:
Everyone 18+ gets to vote just like today. BUT the ballots now include 10 questions next to each candidate. These questions ask about that candidates position on issues where the opposing candidate has a different position. Its a simple 2-choice multiple choice test. "Candidate X supports or opposes policy Y".
If you get 100% of the answers right, your vote counts as one vote. If you get 50% of them right, your vote counts as half a vote. If you get none of them right, your vote isnt counted.
Voila, everyone gets to vote but low information voters dont affect the outcome.
But that doesnt mean we cant change voting rules. Here is my preference:
Everyone 18+ gets to vote just like today. BUT the ballots now include 10 questions next to each candidate. These questions ask about that candidates position on issues where the opposing candidate has a different position. Its a simple 2-choice multiple choice test. "Candidate X supports or opposes policy Y".
If you get 100% of the answers right, your vote counts as one vote. If you get 50% of them right, your vote counts as half a vote. If you get none of them right, your vote isnt counted.
Voila, everyone gets to vote but low information voters dont affect the outcome.
- 1
Titan_Atlas
Deus Vult
- 7,883
- 19,909
But that would be racist as it has been proven that these forms of multiple choice questions are racially biased and you would be taking away the black vote.
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
Picking lifetime income or bullshit IQ levels is every bit as arbitrary as the ones you outlined. 3 million? Why not 500k? Or 30 million? How did you arrive at 3 million, exactly? Oh right, you arbitrarily picked it. And as far as IQ goes, as has been mentioned IQ can be total bullshit. There are lots of people with extremely high IQ's that probably shouldn't make any important life decisions for themselves, let alone the entire country. And there's plenty of average or even low IQ people who have a reasonable amount of common sense that can easily be entrusted with the responsibility of voting.
Picking and choosing who gets to vote and who doesn't is just asinine and completely against the entire spirit of the founding principles of (small L) liberal democracy. And before you get your panties in a twist because I mentioned a swear word, look up the actual definition of "liberal democracy" or "classical liberalism".
- 24,487
- 45,378
Not that I disagree with your overall point but outside of mentally ill people, can you name me a few examples I'd know (not 'my cousin had a 180 IQ but couldn't tie his shoes') of very high IQ people that can't make decisions for themselves?
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
That statement was obviously hyperbole, in terms of not actually being able to make decisions for themselves. But I'd say that many academics, especially in the math/physics departments but by no means exclusive to them, can be very, very odd ducks and can be so focused on their narrow scope of interest that they might not have much useful knowledge about political, economic and governance systems. The same can be said for many "creative" types, whether that be musicians, artists, actors/performers, or what have you. Just because someone is very intelligent or talented, does not mean that they have particularly well founded or effective political opinions or ideologies.
I don't really have any examples for academic type people, but there's about a billion examples (that's hyperbole) of extremely talented actors, musicians and entertainers that are batshit crazy despite their talents and intelligence.
I don't really have any examples for academic type people, but there's about a billion examples (that's hyperbole) of extremely talented actors, musicians and entertainers that are batshit crazy despite their talents and intelligence.
- 24,487
- 45,378
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,415
- 73,483
Thank you for making this thread.
The #1 argument I have against the idea is that consolidating democracy to the already powerful bourgeois would create an even more powerful ruling class that would not vote for the country's best interests but would instead vote to retain and gain in power. Lower caste voters should also vote in their own interests, but spreading out the power of the vote to the entire national demographic causes the results to be a better approximation of what is best for the country.
In more simple terms, if we let the 1% make even more rules, the 99% will get screwed even harder.
The #1 argument I have against the idea is that consolidating democracy to the already powerful bourgeois would create an even more powerful ruling class that would not vote for the country's best interests but would instead vote to retain and gain in power. Lower caste voters should also vote in their own interests, but spreading out the power of the vote to the entire national demographic causes the results to be a better approximation of what is best for the country.
In more simple terms, if we let the 1% make even more rules, the 99% will get screwed even harder.
Titan_Atlas
Deus Vult
- 7,883
- 19,909
So your point requires hyperbole to make? Well that's telling.
As far as the 3 million mark yes you could argue it was arbitrary, but this whole conversation is about arbitrarily creating a scenario for change. I figured 3 million was a good representation of someone who had worked 30-35 years. I don't know about you but I generally don't even want to hear the opinions of 19yr old Bernie supporters, but I'll listen to a 55yr old carpenter. I think the value for less intelligent people comes from wisdom and that takes time to grow. That's why I combined the things I did.
Also the 1% already makes the laws, so that argument is complete bullshit and you know it.
Titan_Atlas
Deus Vult
- 7,883
- 19,909
The assumption being that you vote for your own interests now? Or is that just a mechanism to make you think your choice matters? My opinion is you vote every single time at every single level of politics to..............make the government larger. Large government is always at the detriment to the people. Until we separate economics and government, like we do with religion, you are just casting a vote for chains.
Aldarion
Egg Nazi
- 8,927
- 24,393
This probably goes without saying but sometimes people fail to see the obvious. The problem wasnt your number. The problem is your notion that cumulative earnings are a worthwhile metric for contribution to society.Titan said:
The stay at home mom (lifetime earnings: zero) contributes vastly more to society than the hedge fund manager (lifetime earnings: a fuckton). I could make a dozen similar contrasts but I trust you get the point. Throw out the money based metrics entirely.
My proposal is better because it has nothing to do with money. Its about: do you have a reason for voting this way or is it arbitrary tribalist bullshit? If you know the candidate's position your vote counts. If you dont know the candidates position you get to cast a vote anyway, we just wont count it. This would not concentrate power in the hands of the rich and would equally value votes from all walks of life.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,415
- 73,483
I feel like anyone who holds this opinion has nothing meaningful to say about economics, government or voting structures.
- 3