Restrictions on who can vote?

[britishboy]

This topic comes up regularly and is always controversial. Do you think there should be restrictions on who can vote? The most common restrictions suggested are only educated people and land owners can vote.

While this would undoubtedly provide the right wing parties a massive boost and at first glance the restrictions would be great but what one must remember is that there is a reason why everyone has the vote and that is because everyone must be represented.

What are you opinions on the subject?

[Kurgg]

In my opinion there shouldn't be any other restrictions than age of majority.

Usually the one who support the restrictions wants them to those people, who are his partys opponents :P

[Vlerchan]

The most common restrictions suggested are only educated people[1] and land owners can vote[2].

[1]: Define: 'educated'.

[2]: This is an unfair restriction of those who find it more economical to rent.

While this would undoubtedly provide the right wing parties a massive boost [...]

There's no undoubtedly about it: levels of education have been linked to more liberal voting patterns. The working class is the most reactionary of the classes. (Source.) (http://www.progressivepolicy.org/2011/03/more-college-graduates-more-democratic-voters/)

Even the Daily Heil agrees. (Source). (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html)

[Harry Smith]

This topic comes up regularly and is always controversial. Do you think there should be restrictions on who can vote? The most common restrictions suggested are only educated people and land owners can vote.



I'm sorry but no-know has suggested this in the last 100 years-its hardly a topic that comes up regularly. Not a single political party in the UK runs on this platform-the last time it was suggested was in 1916-you need to update your British political history.

at first glance the restrictions would be great

How?

[Miserabilia]

No, everyone must be able to vote. Otherwise there is no point of democrocy, and it will quickly escalate to Aristocrocy.

[Cygnus]

Let me give you an example, in Venezuela the only restriction on voting is age, and there are so many uneducated people there, that they voted for Chavez with his populist promises, and basically believe whatever they are told by the PSUV. If there was a restriction based on education Venezuela probably wouldn't have gone to shit (or not so much), and there would be an incentive on, you know, not dropping out. Age restrictions should not be dropped either, since there is just too much irresponsibility there.

[Typhlosion]

We shouldn't deny a man to his say and value on politics; equally, we shouldn't force any man's say and value into politics.

I agree with U.S.A.'s voting system. Votes should not be obligatory neither exclusive. When each state has it's own value rather than the whole population we consider the values of a region, which counter-balances regions of dense population with low political variety.

[Harry Smith]

.

I agree with U.S.A.'s voting system. Votes should not be obligatory neither exclusive. When each state has it's own value rather than the whole population we consider the values of a region, which counter-balances regions of dense population with low political variety.

Not really-all that happens is that states like Ohio and Florida become the centre of the election because they're worth so much more than states like Delaware. This also means that like in 2000 you end up with someone winning an election who had less votes

[AlexOnToast]

Age and citizenship seem like the only needed restrictions to me.

[Typhlosion]

Not really-all that happens is that states like Ohio and Florida become the centre of the election because they're worth so much more than states like Delaware. This also means that like in 2000 you end up with someone winning an election who had less votes

Florida should be one center of election. Delaware's population is smaller than 1 million. If anything, Delaware is having the advantage of instead being outnumbered 19:1 (population) it's outnumbered 9.6:1 (electoral vote). The system augments smaller states' representation in votes.

[Harry Smith]

Florida should be one center of election. Delaware's population is smaller than 1 million. If anything, Delaware is having the advantage of instead being outnumbered 19:1 (population) it's outnumbered 9.6:1 (electoral vote). The system augments smaller states' representation in votes.

But it's not-where did Obama campaign the most during 2012? Ohio, Ohio and Ohio again. Don't you see how unfair that makes it, especially since the money and resources are funneled towards these states.

Look at 2000-that shows how stupid the entire US system is

[backjruton]

The only age limit in the UK is you have to be over 18 I think

[JamesSuperBoy]

There are some restrictions by age and I dont think jailed folks can vote -

no matter who can vote - or who actually does seldom will even 30 percent or about be represented - just the way it goes.

[phuckphace]

I think the voting age should be raised to 30 and restricted to men only. and no i'm not trolling.

[Vlerchan]

I think the voting age should be raised to 30 and restricted to men only.

Explain please.

[phuckphace]

women are naturally more prone to falling for emotional appeals than men, and most people under the age of 30 in general are still basically clueless teenagers at heart.

[AlexOnToast]

women are naturally more prone to falling for emotional appeals than men

Where does that leave gay folk then?

[phuckphace]

Where does that leave gay folk then?

well many gays do tend to display more feminine traits compared to heterosexuals. but there are far more women than gays so women need to be disenfranchised first. heh.

[Harry Smith]

most people under the age of 30 in general are still basically clueless teenagers at heart.

Yourself included?

[phuckphace]

Yourself included?

compared to someone who's say, 40 or 50 years old, I would say yes

[Vlerchan]

women are naturally more prone to falling for emotional appeals than men.

Please provide verifiable evidence in support of this claim. Thank you.

and most people under the age of 30 in general are still basically clueless teenagers at heart.

You mean they tend to be more idealistic and in support of liberal policies here right?

[phuckphace]

Please provide verifiable evidence in support of this claim. Thank you.

is this supposed to be rhetorical? you don't need proof for something that is overwhelmingly self-evident. do you actually know any women?

You mean they tend to be more idealistic and in support of liberal policies here right?

I'm sure that's true to a certain extent, but I was referring more to the fact that people grow up a hell of a lot slower these days than they used to. several decades ago most people were adults doing adult things, now it's a bunch of 28 year olds living with their parents and masturbating to My Little Pony erotic fan art

[Vlerchan]

is this supposed to be rhetorical?[1] you don't need proof for something that is overwhelmingly self-evident.[2] do you actually know any women?[3]

[1]: No. It's not rhetorical. I want verifiable evidence in support of your claim before I make any attempt to consider it further.

[2]: The specifics of human-nature are certainly not self-evident.

[3]: Yes.

I'm sure that's true to a certain extent, but I was referring more to the fact that people grow up a hell of a lot slower these days than they used to[1]. several decades ago most people were adults doing adult things, now it's a bunch of 28 year olds living with their parents and masturbating to My Little Pony erotic fan art[2]

[1]: How exactly do you quantify this? Using vague terms like 'adult things' is not helpful.

[2]: So you're willing to deny a large portion of the population the vote merely because you disagree with the lifestyle-choices undertaken by a (minority) subset of that portion. Sounds good.

[Typhlosion]

But it's not-where did Obama campaign the most during 2012? Ohio, Ohio and Ohio again. Don't you see how unfair that makes it, especially since the money and resources are funneled towards these states.

Look at 2000-that shows how stupid the entire US system is
Would things be any different w/o the electoral college in Ohio's example? Barely. Ohio is still in America's top ten most populous states, it's screaming to have campaigns. Who would make a campaign in Wyoming that has a population less than a million? Nobody. Anyone would go where the population is at.

It gets even better: even if Ohio has such a great influence voting, the population has less than other less populated states. Less populated states have less decision power yet their population have more power on politics. Wikipedia: State population per electoral vote (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/State population per electoral vote)

[Harry Smith]

Would things be any different w/o the electoral college in Ohio's example? Barely. Ohio is still in America's top ten most populous states, it's screaming to have campaigns. Who would make a campaign in Wyoming that has a population less than a million? Nobody. Anyone would go where the population is at.

It gets even better: even if Ohio has such a great influence voting, the population has less than other less populated states. Less populated states have less decision power yet their population have more power on politics. Wikipedia: State population per electoral vote (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/State population per electoral vote)

Whilst I agree that with it's population it would be a target-it's just you still haven't replied about the 2000 election which clearly shows the need for reform

[tovaris]

Those over 18 and under 118 should be able to vote
I also like the idea of edicated people voting, since education is free everione can get it and we all knjw what happens if educated people decide to take action ;)

[Stronk Serb]

Educated people should get to vote. Remove religious indoctrination from school programs, add political education and sexual education.

[Ajmichael]

I would restrict prisoners from voting, as most of them are at the moment, and those sectioned under the Mental Health Act...

[Vlerchan]

I would restrict prisoners from voting, as most of them are at the moment.

Why?

[Ajmichael]

Why?

Probably because prisoners have violated the rights of others by committing their offences, so should have some rights removed from them, the best one being voting. And people who are sectioned because they can't be relied upon to make an informed choice on who should run the country. It may not make much of a difference in terms of numbers but its the principal of it.

[xChrisVx]

Probably because prisoners have violated the rights of others by committing their offences, so should have some rights removed from them, the best one being voting.


I agree.

Prisoners have violated the laws which have been made, so it seems fair that they lose the right to influence who makes those laws. At least we don't go as far as America who bans all felons from voting for life. As regards to Human Rights, although the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the British system is incompatible with Convention Rights, its decisions are not binding on the Governments of signatory states. In 2013, the UK Supreme Court held that the blanket ban on prisoner votes was not a breach of EU law. I suppose, we'll have to wait for a case to reach the Court of Justice of the European Union to see if this is the case.

Just as a little side-note, I don't agree that losing the vote is the best right to take away from prisoners, their liberty is... (I'll leave this one up to your own opinion)

[Vlerchan]

Probably because prisoners have violated the rights of others by committing their offences, so should have some rights removed from them, the best one being voting.
You can be jailed for plenty of crimes that don't involve infringing on someone's rights. Drug usage is probably the most obvious one, but there's plenty more.

Though, I'm confused as to why when someone commits a violent crime you'd jump to wanting to take their right to vote away. It doesn't seem particularly consistent to me.

And people who are sectioned because they can't be relied upon to make an informed choice on who should run the country.
It would actually be much easier to ensure that individuals who are confined to the prison system make informed decisions when they are voting. Being in jail doesn't mean that you're incapable of making an informed decision at all - it just means that you made one in the past that society-at-large disagrees with.

I also personally can't see them making consistently worse electoral decisions than the vast majority of the population, so I'm not going to oppose them voting on this ground.

[abc983055235235231a]

Lol @ that guy who said that it is a self-evident fact that women are more susceptible to emotional appeals or w/e.

Disclaimer: I'm not pro-democracy in the first place, but, in the case of a democratic system, this is what I think:
There has to be some sort of restriction that deals with mental competence. Such a restriction pretty much has to be arbitrary, which is unfortunate.
Depending on how exactly the mental competence restriction works, an age restriction may or may not be necessary as well.
Beyond that, I guess citizenship is a given requirement.

Other than that, I think everyone should be able to vote (unless something is slipping my mind at the moment).

I think that prisoners should be allowed to vote (provided that they meet the above conditions).

[Vlerchan]

There has to be some sort of restriction that deals with mental competence.

I can't help but think that this would be an incredibly dangerous clause to include in any bill defining and designating suffrage rights.

[Lovelife090994]

I think the educated, law-abiding, tax paying, and of age, legal citizens should have the right to vote.

[Vlerchan]

I think the educated[1], law-abiding[2], tax paying[4], and of age, legal citizens should have the right to vote.

[1]: Define: educated. And then explain how you plan to measure such.

[2]: "I've broken the law before. I'd be willing to bet that most people have at one stage or another."

[4]: Which taxes?

[Lovelife090994]

[1]: Define: educated. And then explain how you plan to measure such.

[2]: "I've broken the law before. I'd be willing to bet that most people have at one stage or another."

[4]: Which taxes?

By educated at least high school level, by law-abiding I mean not a criminal or ex-con, by taxes I mean the taxes all working citizens pay, and by age I mean at the adult age.

[Jean Poutine]

Do away with voting altogether. Democracy is horribly overrated when certain people and certain business can manipulate the simple-minded at will. Until the time comes where it's really "one person, one vote" and not "one person with a thousand sheeples, a thousand and one votes", we would be so much better served with a system resembling what was devised in Plato's republic. In other words : once people are smart enough to recognize populism and gross manipulation when they see it, then let's have a form of direct democracy, by all means (representative democracy is ass).

Education doesn't mean one has any common sense. A land owning restriction is just lolworthy. Restricting a prisoner's right to vote is unfair as a government may very well change his/her situation to be untenable without so much as his/her input. Breaking the law is not enough of a reason to mean a person has no choice but to live a term or more with an imposed government. Civic rights such as voting are paramount and extremely important.

[Vlerchan]

Democracy is horribly overrated when certain people and certain business can manipulate the simple-minded at will.
It's more certain business and the rich in general can manipulate government at will without needing to proxy through the 'sheeple'. The below report applies to more 'democracies' than just that in the US.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

We would be so much better served with a system resembling what was devised in Plato's republic. In other words : once people are smart enough to recognize populism and gross manipulation when they see it, then let's have a form of direct democracy, by all means (representative democracy is ass).
Lenin, Trotsky and the other Bolshevik 'philosopher kings' in the Soviet Union made promises like this, though they never really materialised. Whilst some form of aristocratic or monarchic rule seems idyllic I'm careful about handing absolute legal power over to an individual of group of individuals who don't even need to pretend that they care about my views - and I'm especially careful about handing it over to some revolutionary intelligentsia (which is what this would entail). Regardless, whilst we're still living in a capitalist system such a set-up would be corrupted within weeks if not days.

I agree with your sentiments about direct democracy. I'd just argue that if we're ever going to implement it then it should be implemented on a localised (or perhaps regional, I'd prefer localised though) level and not a national level. You're going to get a much better manifestation of the people's wishes if you work at such levels. Though, I'd still argue that economic decisions (in a capitalist setting) should be made by technocrats, though technocrats that the national electorate can vote to oust, because most people don't understand economics.

By educated at least high school level[1], by law-abiding I mean not a criminal or ex-con[2], by taxes I mean the taxes all working citizens pay[3], and by age I mean at the adult age[4].

[1]:I also agree that having a high-school diploma doesn't mean that you have common sense. And plenty of intelligent people don't have high school diplomas (see: most of my grandfathers generation.)

[2]:I've outlined why I'm against retracting the rights of prisoners in both this thread and another.

[3]: Retracting the voting rights of people who don't pay income-tax is just ridiculous: that's 11.9% of the Irish labour-force and every stay-at-home parent and every retired person.

[4]: Define: adult age. Though, I don't really care about age restrictions.

[AgentHomo]

If I had it my way, someone who wishes to vote must not have ever donated to anti-gay charities, must have a respected college degree (preferably liberal arts and political science) and must not hold any religious belief, therefore ensuring the progress of American society and society in general. But this is America and all people should have the right to vote, even if some low IQ'd homophobic religious right bigots get to cast their ballot.

[thatcountrykid]

If I had it my way, someone who wishes to vote must not have ever donated to anti-gay charities, must have a respected college degree (preferably liberal arts and political science) and must not hold any religious belief, therefore ensuring the progress of American society and society in general. But this is America and all people should have the right to vote, even if some low IQ'd homophobic religious right bigots get to cast their ballot.

Its a free nation. Voting means deciding on seperate beleifs. You can just let people who agree on the same things as you for because then its not democracy. Thats like how north korea only has one name on its ballots.

[Lovelife090994]

It's more certain business and the rich in general can manipulate government at will without needing to proxy through the 'sheeple'. The below report applies to more 'democracies' than just that in the US.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf


Lenin, Trotsky and the other Bolshevik 'philosopher kings' in the Soviet Union made promises like this, though they never really materialised. Whilst some form of aristocratic or monarchic rule seems idyllic I'm careful about handing absolute legal power over to an individual of group of individuals who don't even need to pretend that they care about my views - and I'm especially careful about handing it over to some revolutionary intelligentsia (which is what this would entail). Regardless, whilst we're still living in a capitalist system such a set-up would be corrupted within weeks if not days.

I agree with your sentiments about direct democracy. I'd just argue that if we're ever going to implement it then it should be implemented on a localised (or perhaps regional, I'd prefer localised though) level and not a national level. You're going to get a much better manifestation of the people's wishes if you work at such levels. Though, I'd still argue that economic decisions (in a capitalist setting) should be made by technocrats, though technocrats that the national electorate can vote to oust, because most people don't understand economics.



[1]:I also agree that having a high-school diploma doesn't mean that you have common sense. And plenty of intelligent people don't have high school diplomas (see: most of my grandfathers generation.)

[2]:I've outlined why I'm against retracting the rights of prisoners in both this thread and another.

[3]: Retracting the voting rights of people who don't pay income-tax is just ridiculous: that's 11.9% of the Irish labour-force and every stay-at-home parent and every retired person.

[4]: Define: adult age. Though, I don't really care about age restrictions.

You can be intellegent without conventional schooling, to me a prisioner should not vote, by tax I mean work otherwise at least be of age, and by adult I mean that country's legal adult age criteria.

If I had it my way, someone who wishes to vote must not have ever donated to anti-gay charities, must have a respected college degree (preferably liberal arts and political science) and must not hold any religious belief, therefore ensuring the progress of American society and society in general. But this is America and all people should have the right to vote, even if some low IQ'd homophobic religious right bigots get to cast their ballot.

You're joking right? So only homosexual supporting atheists can vote to you? You have a lot to learn. In America any citizen can vote regardless of beliefs. Learn that many people are religious.

Please do not double post. Next time use the "edit" or "multi-quote" functions. -Cygnus David

[Vlerchan]

You can be intellegent without conventional schooling[1], to me a prisioner should not vote[2], by tax I mean work[3] otherwise at least be of age, and by adult I mean that country's legal adult age criteria.

[1]:Yes. You can be intelligent without conventional education. The obvious extension of this is extending the vote to individuals who have not completed conventional education.

[2]: Why?

[3]: The same criticism is applicable as last time: "that's 11.9% of the Irish labour-force and every stay-at-home parent and every retired person" who you've just taken the vote from.

[Lovelife090994]

[1]:Yes. You can be intelligent without conventional education. The obvious extension of this is extending the vote to individuals who have not completed conventional education.

[2]: Why?

[3]: The same criticism is applicable as last time: "that's 11.9% of the Irish labour-force and every stay-at-home parent and every retired person" who you've just taken the vote from.

A prisoner is a person who has broke society's rules and should not vote for the advancement of society.

[AgentHomo]

You're joking right? So only homosexual supporting atheists can vote to you? You have a lot to learn. In America any citizen can vote regardless of beliefs. Learn that many people are religious.

No. I'm not joking. And trust me, I plan on majoring in Political science and enter the political arena, fighting for the progress of society and total equality. In my opinion, those who do not support the progress of human rights should not have the right to vote. But they do, and there are many other ways of winning social issues of inequality than just taking away the rights of the oppressors, ways that don't make me seem like a schoolyard bully.

[Vlerchan]

A prisoner is a person who has broke society's rules and should not vote for the advancement of society.

Most people have broken societies rules at one stage or another.

Prisoners are just a group of people who broke societies rules and got caught and broke a rule that the law happened to deem as more important than other rules and thus necessitated their detention. In reality your not retracting the right to vote of prisoners because they simply broke the rules or else you'd be retracting the voting rights of a lot more people - myself included. That's just rhetoric. And it's a horribly inconsistent way to apply the law.

[...] fighting for the progress of society[1] and total equality[2]. In my opinion, those who do not support the progress of human rights should not have the right to vote[3]. But they do, and there are many other ways of winning social issues of inequality than just taking away the rights of the oppressors, ways that don't make me seem like a schoolyard bully.

[1]: What you define as progress is only what you define as progress. There's nothing objective about your own definition of progress and so to retract the right to vote because someone doesn't think along the same lines as you is awful and pretty much the antithesis of democracy. At such a stage you might as well drop the charade and declare yourself president-for-life or something along those lines.

[2]: Impossible.

[3]: I don't support paedophiles rights. Shit, I guess.

[Lovelife090994]

No. I'm not joking. And trust me, I plan on majoring in Political science and enter the political arena, fighting for the progress of society and total equality. In my opinion, those who do not support the progress of human rights should not have the right to vote. But they do, and there are many other ways of winning social issues of inequality than just taking away the rights of the oppressors, ways that don't make me seem like a schoolyard bully.

Well with ways to hide your intolerance and hate behind colorful rhetoric I'd say you're well on your way into politics. Listen, I understand that "equality" is key but what of other issues? Why can't a religious man or woman vote when atheists are in minority? That would lower voter turn out and lead to major lawsuits. I am sorry, regardless of how your views are, no one who is able to vote should be stopped because they believe in a Higher Power or groups of Higher Powers. You don't want to seem like a bully? You seem nore radical to me.

[Lovelife090994]

Most people have broken societies rules at one stage or another.

Prisoners are just a group of people who broke societies rules and got caught and broke a rule that the law happened to deem as more important than other rules and thus necessitated their detention. In reality your not retracting the right to vote of prisoners because they simply broke the rules or else you'd be retracting the voting rights of a lot more people - myself included. That's just rhetoric. And it's a horribly inconsistent way to apply the law.



[1]: What you define as progress is only what you define as progress. There's nothing objective about your own definition of progress and so to retract the right to vote because someone doesn't think along the same lines as you is awful and pretty much the antithesis of democracy. At such a stage you might as well drop the charade and declare yourself president-for-life or something along those lines.

[2]: Impossible.

[3]: I don't support paedophiles rights. Shit, I guess.

I understand keeping a prisoner from voting sounds harsh but unless they can prove to be rehabilitated then why vote?

[Vlerchan]

I understand keeping a prisoner from voting sounds harsh but unless they can prove to be rehabilitated then why vote?

It's not harsh. It's unnecessary.

And I say give them the right to vote as an equal citizen because nobodies yet to provide a rational argument as to why we should be retracting the rights of prisoners in specific.

[Jean Poutine]

It's more certain business and the rich in general can manipulate government at will without needing to proxy through the 'sheeple'. The below report applies to more 'democracies' than just that in the US.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf


That too. The US since Citizens United is basically a rich people's playground. It's obvious a capitalist-minded rich person will try to influence politicians to accrue more profit, to the detriment of anyone else. It's sugar-coated with discredited theories like trickle-down economics, but it's still what's happening.

Regarding the sheeples that I'm referring to, one just has to look at the Tea Party movement. Teabaggers think this is a great, grassroots movement and that somehow having the rich get richer in the name of "freedom" and "small government" (more sugarcoating) sounds just like heaven, while the whole thing is basically bankrolled by the Koch brothers. The problem of money influencing politics is dual in nature.

Lenin, Trotsky and the other Bolshevik 'philosopher kings' in the Soviet Union made promises like this, though they never really materialised. Whilst some form of aristocratic or monarchic rule seems idyllic I'm careful about handing absolute legal power over to an individual of group of individuals who don't even need to pretend that they care about my views - and I'm especially careful about handing it over to some revolutionary intelligentsia (which is what this would entail). Regardless, whilst we're still living in a capitalist system such a set-up would be corrupted within weeks if not days.

I happen to think political opinions are highly overrated. There are matters where opinion can play a role, but to me, the rest of it is a simple black and white, right or wrong matter.

Example : the death penalty. Conservatives love it. They claim it deters crime. It's been repeatedly proven that it doesn't. They turn around and claim their love for small government, but hey - having a ruling elite have the right to terminate your life sounds like pretty damn big government to me.

Another example : tax cuts to rich entrepreneurs so that they can "create jobs". People claim the rich are the real driving force in the economy, and that's bullshit. First, because the real "job creators" are the consumers, who dictate demand for a product. Then, entrepreneurs move in and create supply for that demand, a supply which creates jobs. Most people have it all ass-backwards. No businessman worth his salt is going to create supply out of thin air because somehow there's a tax cut for him in it if there is no sufficient demand. If demand exists but is not significant enough for supply to arise, then yes, a subvention or a tax cut might weigh in the balance, but this is a highly economically unequal measure and it the end just equates welfare for the rich. Know what's a better idea? Redirect these financial incentives to the poor and middle classes (example : a minimum wage hike) so they can spend and create demand - supply will arise naturally. This directly raises the living standards of 95% of the population, contributing to a naturally fairer and freer society for everyone involved. I'm a fucking genius, I should be the Prime Minister of Canada, Harper has absolutely nothing on me.

But hey, aren't rich people also the biggest consumers? So more money in their pockets means they will spend more on luxury goods, right? But rich people need only a few pillows like the rest of us, they need to eat the same amount than the rest of us, there's only so many bottles of shower gel than they need. I've lately watched a documentary about Pacific Coast where the CEO exactly fingers this problem : rich people aren't exactly huge consumers, especially when it comes to household products, while everyday spending is the major part of what constitutes an economy.

All that to say that although a lot of political matters might seem like opinions, there are right or wrong choices. Let those who are able to recognize this lead and curbstomp the opportunists and the manipulators. A ruling caste, beholden to the public good by general education, the study of philosophy and the arts of ruling, would recognize the right choices and throw out demagoguery. I actually picture a world where everybody is taught philosophy from grade school and up to sharpen their critical thinking skills. Nobody would have a need to express opinions concerning how the nation is run because (hopefully) they would make the right choices : equality, freedom and dignity for all. The betterment of mankind as a whole, and not of a particular class or creed, is the logically obvious conclusion to anybody who spent more than 5 minutes thinking about our future : we are social animals and everyone is needed to be able to continue forward, no matter if they are homosexuals, heterosexuals, women, men, uneducated, geniuses, black, white, blue or green.

Of course, I'm more than open to a check on this : a popular recall like Marx envisaged sounds good to me. With the construction of a person's critical thinking skills comes the ability to see clearly what is right and what is wrong, and the ability to act accordingly. It's obvious that some of the ruling caste will begin to be complacent and start to abuse their power if there is nothing to keep them on their toes. However, a popular recall coupled with the education of the masses, the abandon of the notion of property and ultimately currency would mean that nobody would be able to influence public politics, especially not anonymously.

TL;DR : democracy as it is now implemented is overrated, and instead of securing a man's freedom, probably secures his servitude to powers and interests beyond his comprehension.

I agree with your sentiments about direct democracy. I'd just argue that if we're ever going to implement it then it should be implemented on a localised (or perhaps regional, I'd prefer localised though) level and not a national level. You're going to get a much better manifestation of the people's wishes if you work at such levels. Though, I'd still argue that economic decisions (in a capitalist setting) should be made by technocrats, though technocrats that the national electorate can vote to oust, because most people don't understand economics.

National direct democracy has its own problems, and Switzerland's implementation actually seems more and more lolworthy to me given that many of the referendums seem to boil down to "do we remove kebab or not" lately. As was proven during the referendum on capping CEO pay, it's still possible to subjugate the population to a minority's interests. However, regional direct democracy has its own problems : the rule of law would falter due to the split in laws that would occur under such a regime, and people in transit or foreigners would have trouble knowing what is legal or acceptable where. But at least it would not be possible to hijack the whole nation's political process in one fell swoop. Nevertheless, that's a conversation for another topic.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a paper on collective rights to bake.

[AgentHomo]

Well with ways to hide your intolerance and hate behind colorful rhetoric I'd say you're well on your way into politics. Listen, I understand that "equality" is key but what of other issues? Why can't a religious man or woman vote when atheists are in minority? That would lower voter turn out and lead to major lawsuits. I am sorry, regardless of how your views are, no one who is able to vote should be stopped because they believe in a Higher Power or groups of Higher Powers. You don't want to seem like a bully? You seem nore radical to me.

I've only stated my preference of who can and can't vote. Never did I once say I will actively tramples the rights of those who are against the progress of society in order to bring about progress. No. I will fight for progress the legitimate way through the legal systems of government and politics. However, if I had the decision, I would not allow those against progress of humanism and human rights (pro-life, anti-gay, etc) to vote in social issues as their beliefs are extremely illogical and based in illogical ridiculousness.

[Lovelife090994]

I've only stated my preference of who can and can't vote. Never did I once say I will actively tramples the rights of those who are against the progress of society in order to bring about progress. No. I will fight for progress the legitimate way through the legal systems of government and politics. However, if I had the decision, I would not allow those against progress of humanism and human rights (pro-life, anti-gay, etc) to vote in social issues as their beliefs are extremely illogical and based in illogical ridiculousness.

But you only assume their beliefs are ridiculous. They are not ridiculous, but they are life and root to those who hold the beliefs of which is their muse. Yes you fight, you fight for love, you fight for justice, but you do not fight Faith. You see, progress is ubjective and there are more issues than many write off, yet your flag is not your country's but a more selfish band to hide your own ideas that can hurt. Humanism, anti-gay, pro-life let them be. Not all will agree with you, aand if one desires life and sticks to tradition for marriage without spilt blood, then let them be without the ire. A politician who only helps one group and who ignores all but one touch-and-go small issue in the face of greater toils is not a politician but a charlatan. Careful, else your words will be karma back to their owner. Heed this, watch who's life you are capable of changing. A rule can help some and devastate others to be forgotten in the world.